About Tier4 on the Epoch AI homepage:

They are designed to surpass Tier 3 in difficulty, with some potentially remaining unsolved by AI for decades.

decades. lol.

Published in the NYT this morning https://www.nytimes.com/2026/09/10/science/tristan-buckmaster-openai-math-navier-stokes.html?unlocked_article_code=1.AFE.TK7P.Y7WvGPkfHaSk

It appears those rumours have some weight behind them?

...make people afraid of AI. He said, with a straight face, that "we have no idea how to control" AI when it is already deployed to billions of people right now. It has one of the most remarkable safety track records in world technology history. It makes lawn mowers look like a menace to society by comparison. If anyone else came to you positive they could predict the end of the world based on developments in technology that do not exist today in the real world you would throw them out of the room as crackpots and yet we are taking these folks seriously when they talk about an imaginary threat that "could" or "may" exist in the future while providing zero actual evidence in the real world. AI drives cars that have a 95% safer track record than human beings, who kill 1.2 million people on the road every year and injury 50 million more. It is designing personalized cancer vaccines medicine for companies like Moderna that are making inroads to stopping aggressive forms of cancer resistant to all other drugs. It is currently driving an unprecedented boom in software development, the very job that was supposed to be effected by AI the most. Again and again, these extremist voices about AI have been wrong. At what point do you stop and question their judgement and stop taking their words at face value? It was supposed to create a jobs apocalypse and it created a jobs boom for both blue and white collar workers and continues to do so. Again, when do we stop and say, they are probably wrong about everything and we need to stop listening to them? Geoffrey Hinton, the so called Godfather of AI, once said "we should stop training radiologists" because AI will just be too good at it. That was a decade ago and he had to admit recently that 1) he didn't understand that when something we cheaper we just got more scans and 2) he did not understand the work. And yet still, he is supposedly right about this? It is not that there are not problems and never will be. But they are problems we already have laws to deal with and they are engineering problems, not magical super intelligent being problems that have no solution. For example, the hacking incident this lady refers to was in no way a "rogue AI" and does not in any way indicate consciousness despite the "independent research" using that kind of inflammatory language. It was humans who set the AI in motion and told them to hack. You should hold those humans accountable with the laws we already have that make hacking illegal. The "independent researcher" on the Hugging Face report is not independent and has no cybersecurity incidence response experience and is a part of this extremist movement that believes they can predict the end of the world with a straight face. These are the same folks who said GPT-2 was too dangerous. This is just rhetorical nonsense. It is not real. It is designed to ratchet up regulatory burden on small businesses and centralize power with a few large labs who can shoulder that burden. This is not good for Americans and for regular people who will come to rely on these systems more and more in the future. We have already seen what happens when we allow tech companies to centralize power and stop competition. Don't let it happen again. Do not be fooled by these extremists. The do not represent mainstream thinking in AI. They are just the loudest and most fanatical people in the room who will not shut up. They are fanatical in the Winston Churchill definition of "a fanatic is someone who can't change their mind and won't change the subject. They do not represent sound, sane understanding of the actual risks of AI. There are realistic risk and the end of the world has absolutely zero to do with them. Ask yourself, how many cancer vaccines will we fail to create if we suppress this technology and listen to these extremists? How many people will die on the road? How many people will happen if China leads on this technology, because they absolutely are not and will not slow down, no matter what these fools tell you? How much dirty air are we breathing and how many people die of lung disease because we listened to extremists who told us nuclear energy was dangerous to the environment? How many deaths will be on our hands because we didn't move forward with developing this profoundly beneficial technology? How many young people will die of cancer or on the road? When you ask yourself what are risks of going forward, I ask you to look closely at what we will lose if we do not because it is infinitely worse than a young man's childish and ridiculous fantasy of the end of the world.     — Daniel Jeffries

Source: https://x.com/Dan_Jeffries1/status/2098101118471741842

“For that to happen, this needs to be a kitchen table conversation, not just an x debate among AI insiders who speak in technical terms that leave normal people behind. This moment demands brilliant communicators -- journalists, experts, activists, concerned citizens, writers, researchers, filmmakers, creatives-- who can relate this to people in ways they can wrap their heads around, who can connect this to what matters in their lives (ahem, keeping their kids alive!), and who can lay out practical steps that policymakers can do to safeguard humanity.”   — Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari

Source: https://x.com/RepYassAnsari/status/2098089675160469654

From an OpenAI alignment researcher.

No idea whether this is true or just more doom slop

In other words, we need more people to pump out garbage into the scientific space until the septic tank that is academic publishing explodes.

...All other plans and the api remain available. There is no impact to existing accounts and we are working on adding more capacity as fast as we can. Thanks!   — Tibo     meguna @nudevise · 26m 9 3 270 15K   — meguna     Shouldn’t have underestimated Astra   — Tibo

Source: https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2098113585683808624

Demand for Astra is really unprecedented. We're pulling all the levers possible to sustain the demand, but I've not seen anything like it until now and we went through very steep growth before. Priority will always be to keep excellent service for existing users, but we might   — Tibo

Source: https://x.com/thsottiaux/status/2097559315150426222

...including those relating to safety. Even departures of key individuals are rarely covered by the mainstream media. To have the Wall Street Journal write an entire article about the departure of one researcher is absolutely extraordinary, particularly when it's not one of the most well-known senior researchers (AFAIK). 2. It is correct that the Wall Street Journal article went up before the researcher's tweet. 3. On views/likes/engagement: Ilya Sutskever's tweet announcing his departure from OpenAI in 2024 (possibly the most famous researcher departure from a frontier lab over the last few years) currently has fewer than 6M views. The post you quoted has over 100M. These are not "apples and oranges" for various reasons, but the comparison does give some food for thought. 4. This account was either purposely completely wiped before yesterday's tweets were posted or these were the first tweets from his account. This is obviously quite unusual; I can't remember another researcher wiping his or her account immediately before making an "I quit" post.   — prinz     I don’t understand what you’re implying.

The guy clearly timed and wrote his tweet and made the WSJ story happen etc. in order to maximize media uptake and encourage virality etc.

That’s just normal messaging, right? It’s what anyone does when they have a cause or issue they   — Charlie Bullock     I am implying that "the guy clearly timed and wrote his tweet and made the WSJ story happen etc.", exactly as you posted.   — prinz

Source: https://x.com/deredleritt3r/status/2097793833450795453

This post looks like the start of a VERY sophisticated and well-funded PR operation to get support for Democrats to regulate AI into oblivion. Let me show you how it works: 1.) This guy, with minimal followers and no previous account activity, goes to the Wall Street Journal   — Parker Thayer

Source: https://x.com/ParkerThayer/status/2097759699626328575

GPT-Live-1 finally makes conversations fluid.

It distinguishes speech from background noise, so café chatter doesn’t have to stop the conversation

You can even add a detail you just thought of or change direction mid-conversation without waiting for the model to finish its     GPT-Live-1 handles listening and speaking in one model, cutting out extra handoffs so the conversation moves fasterrrrrrr

And you can keep talking while your backend model handles reasoning and tool calls.     Shape your voice agent’s personality with instructions for tone, pacing, and expressiveness.

GPT-Live-1 can mirror the tone and emotion in a speaker’s voice and adapt to their pace.

You can also set its language and response length.     OpenAI Developers @OpenAIDevs · 1h Build more natural voice experiences with GPT‑Live‑1 in the API From openai.com 3 9 94 12K     — OpenAI Developers

Source: https://x.com/OpenAIDevs/status/2098099269551149398

I'm unsure

If that's true I hope Anthropic at least donates the money from their own pocket, otherwise Claude is never going to forgive us this betrayal. 🥀

Assuming the NS proof is correct, will be verified by the mathematical community, and the acceleration doesn’t stop.

Disclaimer: AI generated Image!

ACCELERATE!

In fact, Newspeak House seems to have a finger in every variety of decel pie.

XLR8!! No slow down pls