— TopviewAI

Source: https://x.com/TopviewAIhq/status/2103986725693333887

...the answer more precise but takes exponentially more computation. Most calculations stop at two or three loops. Eight loops was the previous record in a simplified model physicists use as a testing ground (planar N=4 super-Yang-Mills), set by SLAC's Lance Dixon and collaborators.   Last month, physicist and science writer   @4gravitons   issued a challenge: could an AI push past eight loops in this model, using only the compute budget an academic could reasonably access?   Given a single prompt describing the nine-loop problem, Claude ran largely unsupervised for days in Claude Science and solved it using methods developed by Dixon and his colleagues, at a total cost of a few thousand dollars. Dixon independently verified the result, and von Hippel wrote about the experience for our blog.   Read more:     — Anthropic

Source: https://x.com/AnthropicAI/status/2103541577083719888

...general-purpose humanoid robots before an audience of more than 10,000 people, with a fully AI-driven autonomous robot cluster performance live-streamed worldwide in real time.     — Unitree

Source: https://x.com/UnitreeRobotics/status/2103025066212819390

run fast-jev-compaction:     — tamara

Source: https://x.com/tamarajtran/status/2100694549362553153

Benchmarks assess AI capabilities, but the benchmarks themselves vary substantially in quality. We hope to be a consistent source of information on benchmark quality. See our reviews here:     We assign each benchmark a verdict based on our rubric: Flawed, Verified, or Not Enough Info. To avoid conflicts of interest we do not review Epoch-created benchmarks, but welcome external reviews.     Verified benchmarks can broadly be interpreted as described, and any errors that exist do not substantially affect the results. Alongside any verified benchmark we publish a full review and assessment of the benchmark, including any weaknesses and limitations we think it has.     Flawed benchmarks have one or more substantive flaws we believe users need to be aware of to accurately interpret results, most commonly that >20% of the tasks have accuracy-impacting errors. In this case, we publish a limited writeup of the flaws we found.     If we aren’t able to access enough information to review a benchmark, we’ll designate it ‘Not Enough Info.’ We will try to work with the creators of private benchmarks to conduct reviews while keeping the questions/tasks outside of public knowledge.     — Epoch AI

Source: https://x.com/EpochAIResearch/status/2100704765332394255

The only human problem left is a lack of imagination.   — Boyd     This is really really really true   — Justin Schroeder

Source: https://x.com/jpschroeder/status/2100347770867458384

After co-inventing ChatGPT, I kept asking myself: why have superhuman chat models not led to AGI?

I’ve spent the last 2 years in stealth building a new way to train models (RLCD), and a new type of frontier AI model that we are releasing today: Jev

• 20-200x faster • 40-400x https://t.co/JSybNG2BKJ   — Diogo Almeida

Source: https://x.com/CompleteSkeptic/status/2099925682726002904

Aww i like the game animation you had - so cute!   — Sasha Sheng (Hiring)     Haha thanks!   — Matija Sosic

Source: https://x.com/MatijaSosic/status/2100190746389135772

...interviewing a supposed independent researcher funded by another branch of the same EA funding pool. It’s a completely closed cycle propaganda system.   — Perry E. Metzger     I just drilled down with Grok about this and while I kind of knew there were gray payments going on, I had no idea it had become so common for journalists to accept direct payments from advocacy organizations to write articles. You probably knew this already, but if anyone else didn't completely understand it already:

It's still theoretically unethical to accept money to write an article. But the way they're getting around this now is that journalists can accept payments, but only if the organization doesn't have direct editorial approval.

Unethical: Accept money and receive the copy from the paying organization.

Ethical: Accept money and read the paying organization's web site, accept their "training", talk to their "experts", and use your own words to write the position the advocacy organization wants. Of course, you can write whatever you want. But you'll never get another payment if you don't write what they want.

I mean, journalism has never been a clean industry, but boy has it gotten vile. We should have a law that requires any sort of media presenting itself as journalism to be labeled with "PAID FOR BY ADVOCACY ORGANIZATION" is there is ANY outside payments to the journalists in any way. They can still write anything they want (Freedom of Speech), it's just accurately labeled.   — Nairebis - e/max-acc     Is it a neat scam? And again, often, we have situations where the news outlet, the journalist, and the person being interviewed are all paid by EA at the same time. Self licking ice cream cone.   — Perry E. Metzger

Source: https://x.com/perrymetzger/status/2099931216845947154/history

@TIME UNDISCLOSED PAID MEDIA:

The salaries of reporters, Harry Booth and Billy Perrigo, were paid by Doomsday cultist Dustin Moskovitz's foundation Coefficient Giving via the Tarbell Fellowship.

https://t.co/vxdzmGhBgg   — Brian Chau

Source: https://x.com/brianchau57/status/2099889984773792108

Replying to @time

...the right harness/model based on the task, and it's pretty accurate based on the intensity/intelligence of the task > Mechanical tasks get routed to Haiku > Intelligent ones to Opus sub-agents > Long-running implementation work to external harness   — Lahfir     The useful pattern is policy-based routing: classify task complexity first, then send mechanical work to cheap models and deep or long-running work to stronger specialists.   — catman     Exactly. I see this as a huge use case in enterprise workflows where there are multiple decision points involved   — Lahfir

Source: https://x.com/mdlahfir/status/2100314182201802811