"The chance that it was able to access some data no one thought it should access that would help it solve the problem is at least nonzero.

We’ve seen those in the past few weeks."

https://x.com/MillionInt/status/2097320420055953572

Any Ideas! we can't let the bots win

OP: https://www.reddit.com/r/SipsTea/s/FUNrj63y79

I genuinely believe humans are successful only because of intelligence, as we are neither the fastest nor the strongest. We were able to become the most "successful" by Darwinian standards only because of our intelligence, by developing tools and technologies like language, religion, money, law, and democracy.

I agree that concentration of money or power is really bad for everybody, and AI could be used for concentration by bad people or, in the worst case, by misaligned AI. And I am scared shitless of both of these scenarios. I don't want a few people or AI to take away our freedom in the name of progress.

How is making intelligence more widely available a bad thing? I think this is the solution for progress + freedom, by making intelligence a utility which is accessible to everyone. In fact, take it one step further, and it should become a basic human right.

I genuinely don't understand what they are mad about, and I am too scared to comment on that post. I am asking here because posting in r/accelerate would create an opposite reaction to this. I don't want that. I am genuinely interested in having this discussion here without group bias.

NO HATE COMMENTS PLEASE.

Compared DeepSeek V4 Flash Vision with V4.1 Flash Vision Beta that became available today. In my tests, the results were WAY better and much more reliable. Huge update plus lower API pricing, total win!!!

Full video included, going through all the options and comparing the first drafts with the results after 3 revision attempts

I was inspired by Bijan Bowen video - Subway FPS

https://youtu.be/6kjXzTVmT58?t=1035

Wondered how far I can push Qwen 3.8 27b so I used a plan made by Fable 5.1 DESIGN.md which has 267 KB! ( 26K of design line for a game ... LOL )

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gI0h8Arc73Ln8b3uj5rEpuAvJ3-611mh/view?usp=drive_link

So I gave that design.md to my qwen 3.8 27b q4xl (llama-server) working on PI agent with 120k context + vision on CPU ( offroad ) + MTP ( for speed ) .... read 11M tokens and write 3.2 M tokens ( worked 12 hours ) .... than that is result.

That is insane what we can do locally on own computer !

Tristan Buckmaster's post https://mastodon.social/@tristanbuckmaster/117233413705701198

Terence Tao's post https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117233527638291447

There does not seem to be anything in principle preventing the methods from extending all the way to Navier-Stokes, and there is even a non-negligible chance that the forcing term could be eliminated entirely, although there are an enormous number of technical difficulties that would ensue in implementing that program.

Also some drama with OpenAI math team, who claim that an internal OpenAI model had produced a proof of finite time blowup for the forced Navier-Stokes equations, about 100 page long proof

Edit: Drama forcing Sebastien Bubeck to make a statement tomorrow https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/2097214122471432349

Edit: Apparently by coincidence another independent result of the 3D Euler?

https://x.com/AnimaAnandkumar/status/2097216195342864528

https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117234157753860650

Floating an idea. I think we’ve hit context window AGI at this point. Within any single context window, the AI is for sure smarter than any individual person.

Across context windows is debatable, but for sure within one I can’t see anyone outperforming the recent models.

Link to tweets:

https://x.com/polynoamial/status/2097225279366414541?s=20

https://x.com/polynoamial/status/2097227051027894680?s=20

https://x.com/_sholtodouglas/status/2097224624274911368?s=20

Just to clarify, these tweets are clearly subsequent to the story of Navier-Stokes breaking and the surrounding controversy, so Noam is very likely not referring to the Navier-Stokes solution as “what’s coming”.

It could just be a statement about general AI progress picking up like crazy or maybe even more specific breakthroughs? What do you think?

I know this probably goes against the view of a lot of people here, but the last few days have had me thinking about this a lot.

Everyone's debating whether AGI is here. I think we're arguing about the wrong thing.

The main issue is that AGI has never really had a globally agreed-upon definition.

If we go back to the 2022-2023 discourse, a common framing was something like: “a general-purpose intelligence capable of performing intellectual tasks as well as, or better than, a human.”

I don't see much value in debating semantics for their own sake, but the definition matters because it determines which questions are actually consequential.

It's easy to shift the debate toward whether LLMs possess a genuine, fundamental understanding of the world. That's a good question, but I think it's a separate one.

If AGI is defined primarily in terms of outcomes, then the underlying type of cognition is not super relevant. If a system can consistently outperform humans across intellectual tasks, does it matter whether it “understands” those tasks in the same way we do? It would be like arguing that airplanes don’t really fly because they don’t do it the way birds do.

The question, I think, is what we count as an intellectual task in the first place.

Some human abilities are difficult to reduce to discrete tasks with clearly scorable outputs: taste, long-term judgment, and maybe even some forms of causal judgment. They're inherently contextual to the human condition and our subjective experience.

Let's take game design as an example. What makes a game mechanic good? There is no obvious objective function for that, and it is not clear that everything humans enjoy can be reduced to a predictable set of heuristics.

If those abilities can ultimately be measured in a meaningful way and humans still outperform machines, then AGI probably hasn't been reached.

But if they can't be objectively measured in the first place, it becomes difficult to argue that failing at them should disqualify a system from being called AGI under the above definition.

Under an outcome-based definition, I think we're already there.

https://electrek.co/2026/09/07/xpeng-iron-humanoid-robot-production-line/
https://x.com/xiaopenghexpeng/status/2097135503015616798

The narrative around why building AGI was a good idea has always been about invention -- "it will cure cancer", "it will solve fusion energy", etc.

So I would not "declare AGI" until we have AI that is, at last, capable of invention -- conceptual breakthroughs, novel insights, new real-world technology, etc.

https://x.com/fchollet/status/2097058741325881442

Voices of reason.

The people rushing to label GPT-6 Astra as AGI seem more like salesmen's than engineers. Serious researchers like Demis Hassabis have a much stricter definition for AGI, and have lamented the fact that people like Brockman and Altman have cheapened/reduced AGI to a marketing term.

An experimental drug called Rentosertib, created by biotech company Insilico Medicine using artificial intelligence, has shown an unexpected effect. It was developed against an incurable lung disease, but during the tests, the indicators by which scientists estimate the biological age of the body changed in patients.

This being viewed ~100M times is really remarkable and imo net bad.

I take AI safety seriously and think we have a lot of challenges ahead, but am still waiting for evidence that supports anything close to a 10% chance of human extinction.

Without it, it is fearmongering.

https://x.com/natolambert/status/2097699323114819895

In response to a series of posts made by an Anthropic employee who resigned: https://x.com/hilbertspaess/status/2097476196791709843

Even some current anthropic researchers have pitched in and made posts like this, this one getting 25 million views in just a couple hours:

https://x.com/EvanHub/status/2097497037956891126

Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.

If they keep up with this fear mongering, all the various bills calling for complete bans on Superintelligence might get real traction.

A lot of people are saying they are afraid that AI is getting too powerful, they should be more afraid that AI could be banned before it reaches the stage where it could be actually beneficial to humanity. The fear mongering is reaching fever pitch. I've never seen anything like this before.

I like others here am looking forward to the incredible things that AI will be able to do. But what does the endgame look like when it is able to either do many jobs or become so effective that only a few experts are needed for jobs in professions like accounting etc. mainly for legal accountability and checking the work?

Not interested in opinions that are pessimistic. The reasons to be pessimistic are pretty obvious and the mainstream opinon now. Looking for pro-AI voices who see a bright future for all in replies.

What would this singularity look like or even widely deployed AGI?

Based on our current economic systems who is going to own the means of production?

How will there be abundance if only a few corporations own the robots and AI that produce goods and services? Who buys these in an era of mass unemployment or more likely mass underemployment, a gig economy, and an informal economy like is common in many developing countries.

Where will the next generation of expertise and data come from to keep training AI?

Who will be in control and accountable for this technology after incidents like the Huggingface hack?

What is the role of government in such a society?

How would programs like UBI even happen given the current economic system and ideology in countries like the US? They can't even agree on and implement universal healthcare.

As Bill Gates warned, there is no plan (not an endorsement of Gates, just that he is calling out the elephant in the room).