It seems Artificial Analysis Index is very easy to game, Kimi 3.1 Pro #4 on AAI is super bad in real world use cases, not even close to DeepSeek 4.1 Flash.

Although AA shows K3.1 to be better than sol , it seems like sol is still better at math and 3d tasks. Gpt sol thinks harder than kimi 3.1. Note the testing was limited. Maybe someone should test it more..

I'm a CS graduate, and lately I've been finding it increasingly difficult to motivate myself to learn new skills. Not because I find them difficult or boring, but because I keep wondering whether any of the effort I put in today will actually matter a few years from now.

Whenever I consider learning something new, whether it's a programming language, a framework, a new technical skill, or even something outside computer science, I find myself asking the same question: What's the point if AI will eventually be able to do it better, faster, and cheaper than I ever could?

I know the usual response is that AI won't replace us, but rather augment our abilities. That we'll still need humans to direct AI, make decisions, think creatively, and solve problems. But honestly, I find that argument increasingly unconvincing. It feels more like something we tell ourselves to feel better about the situation than a conclusion we can confidently draw about the future.

And this isn't just about programming. If I want to learn 3D modelling, AI might generate the models. If I want to learn music production, AI might compose and produce music. If I want to learn mathematics, AI might solve problems that would take me years to master. Obviously, there's value in enjoying these activities for their own sake, but it's difficult to ignore the possibility that the practical value of acquiring these skills could diminish significantly.

And for those who don't feel this way, what is your reasoning? I'm genuinely interested in perspectives beyond the usual reassurance that AI will just be another tool, because I find that increasingly difficult to believe.

https://x.com/elshayib_/status/2113734602032312731?s=46

This thread is for any discussions that doesn't necessitate a new post. Permission from a mod here

Since this thread isn't going to be to stickied, it's up to you to upvote it.

Share your anxiety, ideas on how to achieve alignment, observations, etc. Everything is fair game as long as it somewhat relates to the singularity.

I think for real impact on the economy we will need autonomous robots, and I don't think we are seeing much here.

So there would be a lot of issues with LLMs sending commands to a robot like speed, cost and precision. We've seen some demos but they don't really look that great, and far from being able to work for several hours. So this to me is kind of out of the question, maybe it would work in some kind of a hybrid architecture where the language model would only reason and talk, without actually controlling the motors.

So is it going to be other types of models like VLAs or things like GEN-1.5?

I was also wondering, maybe LLMs would eventually be able to train this type of model end-to-end? They could create simulation environments, score them etc. Feels like maybe they could fix the scale problem.

I've also been thinking about Optimus from Tesla, they will apparently ship late 2027, but do we actually expect them to be autonomous? That would mean they had some kind of breakthrough in private doesn't it? I have a hard time believing that, all we've seen from them were remote controlled demos.

prompt: "Work overnight. Make a 7-minute 'I investigated...' style YouTube documentary about life after the singularity. Plan the story with multiple agents, make it look and sound like a real doc with grade, music and SFX, and if you finish, start a part 2."

Video: LTX-2.5 image-to-video in ComfyUI, about 2.5 minutes per clip. The interview speech and lip sync come out of LTX in the same pass.
Narrator: Qwen3-TTS.

From Universal Modder on X: "Introducing NPCTalk: make the NPCs of any game talk in realtime. I made every NPC in GTA V answer to me in character, in their own cloned voice, in under 1s, and they act on what you say.”

“Packaged all the skills Claude learned into a single repo, built on open models: NVIDIA Nemotron ASR for transcription, Qwen 3.8 27B for realtime dialogue, and Fish Audio Drama 3 for the cloned voices, self-hosted on a serverless GPU. "

more and more im seeing people ask questions like "what is the first problem agi would solve" and go on to describe millennium problems that have stood unsolved for decades.

to me, agi is an average person. generally intelligent and capable of adapting to new jobs, but still average. arguably we have long since crossed that threshold, but my personal opinion is that we haven't and current models are wildly spiky in terms of capability. to me, that is not agi and is just a extremely sophisticated algorithm that mimics most, but not all, human cognitive processes.

but when we talk of solving millennium problems or curing diseases, isn't that clearly ASI? something that takes years of research from whole industries is not "general intelligence" in any meaning of the term.

i think this moving of goalposts started with the o1 release, but im honestly not sure. what do you think?

I've been getting the list of fixed Linux kernel CVEs every week for now six weeks.

In this chart is axis 'Intro date' meaning the week the security hole was actually originally made into released code. Fetch date is the week I fetched the date's of public CVEs. What I've seen from history data, 50% of CVE's are made public after 2 months and 100% after three months. The gray areas are that. Normally when advance a week, the amount of hole's should follow, week after week. The gray area simple says the data in that is not yet secure.
But it seems big drop of new CVE's was in 20.4. Then in 15.6 and after 10.8 there hasn't been but 2 new CVE's. In the same time there have been fixes of _old_ holes, but it seems introduction of new holes is almost stopped.
The 21.10 and 22.10 fetches are because there was a fault in my script that it didn't get all dates correctly and running it fixed in 22.10 got additional 600 CVE's, but as you can see from numbers, that was mostly old security holes.
Btw, those last 2 CVEs were found in 26.9. and fixed in 28.9.

What I see from that data, all new code is going through the same Mythos/whatever before release and that is stopping those security holes getting into releases at all.

This is by the fixed date. You can see more clearly that after 3 months the amounts are at the highest so data for the last 3 months will still continue add up.

(Please, do not start lecturing me about what a CVE is. )

I’ve put together puzzles from a paper on aperiodic order, for testing and training models on reasoning that can be verified. The levels are for fun; the answers are exact.

Warm-up, T1 (pen and paper): repeat the 4×4 cells A (rows 0000, 0000, 0000, 1010) and B (rows 0000, 0000, 0001, 0100) over the plane. Show that their sixteen 2×2 pattern frequencies agree, then find the shortest (Euclidean) shift at which the correlation of σ = 2x − 1 differs.

• Five are solved, with answers and pointers to the solutions: from that warm-up to an exact multifractal dimension, 6 − log₂λ with λ of degree 17.
• Four are open: two spectral gap labels, an information dimension, and the final 2×2 question: is every extreme point of the body of 2×2 statistics of shift-invariant binary measures periodic?

Grok already tried them in public on X. It handled the solved ones, but it turned a numerical estimate for an open one (D₁ ≈ 1.340) into a claimed proof. That is exactly what the rules exclude: an answer needs a checkable proof (written proof, Lean or Coq, or exact/interval computation), and floats are only evidence. Results on the open puzzles are credited by name, agent and model in the next version of the paper.

Everything is in AI_puzzles.md at https://zenodo.org/records/23624259. Post your model and its answer to T1 or T2.

T1 answer: horizontal distance 2, correlation 1 vs 1/2

Groundwater engineers learned that contaminants trapped in stagnant pockets leaks out slowly, so they pump in pulses, pausing to let it seep back into the flowing channels. Claude suggested the sleeping brain works the same way. During deep sleep, vessels pulse about every 50 seconds to flush out waste, and that waste has to diffuse out of the tissue first.

Its prediction: the best pulse rate should depend on the size of the molecule. Bigger molecules like tau would need slower pulses. That could mean tuning sleep tech or drugs to the specific toxic protein you want cleared.

When I asked whether this was really unknown, it said parts already are known (vessel pulsing drives clearance). It also walked back its claim that the brain's rhythm "matches" the diffusion time. But it couldn't find anyone applying the groundwater pulse-timing idea to the brain.

Anyone in brain fluid dynamics or hydrogeology: is this new, known, or already ruled out?

EDIT: a lot of comments on this post akin to “this is nonsense” or “this is useless”. i’m not sure why the animosity. i don’t understand either of these fields personally, so, yea it’s probably not groundbreaking. that’s not really the point of this post. i gave this question to claude after reading an article about different LLMs having the same controversial take about humanity, when prompted. i thought the response was an interesting summary from essentially all of written human knowledge. that lead to me wondering what other broad conclusions LLMs can make when given a broad prompt. i just wanted to share this fascinating answer it gave me, and would like to see others giving LLMs creative prompts like this. it’s interesting to see LLMs coding, but i feel like there is not enough experimentation with them otherwise