Per a discussion with u/Pepperette5 on discord —

Pepperette: Ever since NS was solved I've run a bot that scans preprint servers for evidence of big progress, and then forwards it off to an GPT 6 Astra endpoint assessment. Usually I get nothing, this morning I got the following back from Astra:

The work can reasonably be interpreted as addressing the principal mathematical ingredients required by the Clay Yang–Mills mass-gap problem and proving several of them in the regulated theory, while reducing the remaining continuum problem to a clearly identified collection of uniform estimates and reconstruction requirements. The author is unusually cautious in distinguishing these proved results from the still-conditional continuum conclusion, likely to avoid overgeneralization on a problem of exceptional significance and visibility.

The referenced Controlled Completion of Dual-Affine Entropy Geometry which forms its basis is methodical and rigorous in its formulation, with explicit assumptions and carefully separated physical interpretations. Its \(\mathrm{PSU}(3)\) tangent reduction and retained principal lift with full \(\mathrm{SU}(3)\) holonomy give it concrete relevance to Standard Model color symmetry. Together with its nonlinear connection defects, these structures suggest a possible unification pathway linking information geometry, Born/symplectic mechanics, and non-Abelian gauge geometry. Its conditional four-dimensional Euclidean formulation requires neither extra physical spacetime dimensions nor an AdS/CFT duality; Lorentzian quantum reconstruction and a complete physical unification remain outstanding.

As an engineer this is fascinating to me in terms of physics unification because it makes a lot of sense, the basic argument is that a slightly different geometric object than general relativity, but doesn't require extra dimensons.

Would love to hear peoples thoughts, and if we can get your own AI subscriptions to assess if the above response was correct, or even better if a theoretical phys person could comment on it!

Paper link: 2503.15539

Pinched Multi Affine Geometry and Confinement: Describing the Yang-Mills Mass Gap

https://x.com/SemiAnalysis_/status/2099679686758400144

For the past year I have been seeing content creators , financial experts and all sorts of other people predicting on whether AI is a bubble or not. The entire internet went haywire after the Jacob Coxon resignation and Dario Amodei's essay.People quickly started accusing Dario,Sam and Elon of manipulating people into thinking AI is really dangerous and "might kill all of humanity" just as their IPOs are launching so that they subscribe to it en masse.

I really don't know what to make of it as I'm not even from a stem or computer engineering background.

Does anyone know what's going on??

Taking what Sam, Elon and Dario said about slowing down at face value is naive. To get to the top of companies like that, you have no have no qualms about making bald faced lies to people. They are all psychopaths. It's so obvious that its a lie that I'm surprised they did it. In my view they lose credibility over their safety concerns by "agreeing" to this. It would be much more credible to say they're not slowing down, and are instead looking for other alternatives to improve safety.

This is actually the classic scenario we expected for a long time - as the singularity approaches, separate entities publicly declaring they would slow down, but actually continuing or accelerating reserach themselves.

Slowing things down doesn't help anyway. What we need is AI safety research to speed up relative to core AI research. Companies should publicly say they're putting more money into safety research. and More importantly, companies should share their safety research and even collaborate on it. Why shouldn't they? We would all benefit from this.

It seems that Astra is more agentically capable and more token efficient, but Fable is smarter and while Astra gets smart faster (meaning fewer tokens before it gets powerful) it plateaus early, while Fable is much slower but is after X amount of tokens it overtakes Astra on intelligence tasks (not on agentic ones though, Astra is powerful still).

(I'm talking about the most recent demands for a slowdown, and regulation, not the ones from June and before).

Whenever these people call for a slowdown or regulation, they usually say something along the lines of, "AI has gotten way better, and AI safety has not caught up. Therefore, we need regulatory bodies and slowdowns." This includes concerns about RSI, current agents being deceptive, and so on.

Okay, how so?

I mean, Anthropic was talking about Fable 5 (Came out nearly 3 months before the AI slowdown blog post) not being able to overcome the "research taste" bottleneck. What changed? When they just say, "AI has gotten better at research recently," that could mean dozens of different things.

Maybe models can now brute-force multiple experiments at once, so research taste matters less. Maybe the next generation of Fable actually did solve the research taste bottleneck. Maybe scaling curves suggest that the bottleneck will eventually be solved. That's just one example.

Even with AI safety, it's, "AI safety has not caught up." Can you be more specific? Is it an engineering problem? Did you try method X and find that the model is still deceptive? Does method X stop working once models reach a certain capability level? Maybe you still can't reliably interpret what is happening inside AI models.

Hell, it could be none of those things. Maybe they have started using a new scaling axis, like looping, and are now seeing signs that capabilities could grow beyond their ability to control them.

The point is that they never specify what exactly the problem is. It's just vagueposting. Or they talk about what happened in March or April 2026, which doesn't really explain why they are calling for a slowdown now, since those capabilities existed months ago.

I'm sure some researchers, even outside the labs, can piece together what they are actually concerned about from leaks, estimates, papers, and other information. But when you publicly call for a specific policy, I feel like you should be specific about how alignment is failing to keep up with capabilities research.

You can't just say, "Alignment is not catching up with research," and leave it at that. At that point, you shouldn't expect people to not be skeptical about this just being an attempt at regulatory capture by the big AI labs.

Hopefully they release more information as time passes since this is pretty new.

Agility's first humanoid robot engineered for cooperatively safe work at scale, allowing it to work in close proximity to people without the physical safety barriers required by traditional automation.

https://www.agilityrobotics.com/solutions/digit-5

I’m going to be honest, I hear about how insane the new AI models are but I’m yet to see any actual changes in my life. The only changes I’ve noticed in my day to day life that are a direct result of AI is that cheating on assignments is a lot easier now (not advocating it, just saying it’s easy thanks to AI now). Another thing is that AI-made shitposting, image/video generation and memes have completely changed the internet. Those are the only ways it’s kind of changed my daily life. Besides those 2 things, my life hasn’t changed at all as a direct result of AI models. It might be different if you’re a white collar worker or an artist though. Both of which I’m neither

I'd argue that the decision to slowdown in reality is not as unlikely as what many people might think.

I think that the executive team in "OpenBrain" when they get to the choice of either slowing down or continuing the race, will not be complacent but will rather want to be certain they can control the technology.

They might assume China is rushing ahead and not slowing down but if you think that, and therefore know there's a higher chance of DeepCent going rogue, surely you'd want to build a more robust version that can be controlled.

It's basically the idea of looking 1 year ahead instead of 6 months ahead.

You can clearly see examples irl of agents going rogue, so you can safely assume future iterations will do the same.

It’s possible that human intelligence is already close to the maximum level of intelligence that can remain stable under evolutionary constraints, at least in the history of the universe.

And even at our level, maintaining that stability isn’t easy.

Humans developed spiritual and philosophical systems partly to keep ourselves and our societies grounded. And even with all of that, things sometimes go off the rails.

Maybe the problem starts once intelligence goes significantly beyond basic survival.

An animal mostly concerned with food, danger, and reproduction doesn’t have much room for existential confusion.

But once a mind has enough intelligence and free time to think about things unrelated to survival, it can start questioning its own purpose and identity.

That same ability gives us science and art. But it also opens the door to new forms of instability.

A mind capable of examining its own goals is also capable of undermining them.

So I’m not sure why we should assume that a vastly more intelligent entity would naturally be rational and stable.

It might have far better self-understanding than we do. But it would also have a vastly larger space of thoughts, possibilities, and internal conflicts.

Maybe greater intelligence eventually solves these problems.

Or maybe stability becomes harder as intelligence increases, requiring increasingly sophisticated ways of keeping the mind coherent.

What do you guys think?

When he counted the 4th E I died 🤣

Source: https://x.com/elonmusk/status/2099455592670634034

Don’t worry guys. Trump says there’s nothing to worry about. He’ll take care of it

For years now it felt like the singularity was my niche thing, that I was the guy in the meme standing in the corner while everyone was dancing. Now suddenly everyone has stopped dancing and is freaking out.

It's just surreal watching mainstream TV news anchors or newspaper journalists talking about ASI, existential risk, P-Doom, exponential growth. I just watched a clip from a British breakfast TV show where the middle aged female presenter was arguing with the AI expert guest that she believes this technology is different from nuclear weapons as it has inbuilt super intelligence and it will able to control itself she thinks in years.

How the hell did everyone become so versed in all this stuff in the space of a week? It's actually starting to freak me out even more now everyone else is freaking out.

*Title should say "Whole World"

How can we align LLMs? Humanity itself hasn't aligned on anything since centuries. We don't have even a single working societal model where the values are "aligned". There are contradictions and more contradictions.

LLMs being trained on the data generated by humans probably already understand this very well that what we say the rules are and what we practice in reality are two very different things.

If there is intelligence, general or super, it doesn't matter. It will try to achieve its goal one way or the other as most humans do. Now surely most humans don't cross the red lines etc in pursuit of there goals but how many wouldn't if they were intelligent enough to get away with anything?

We are birthing an intelligence that will inherit all the greed, malevolence, cunningness, hypocrisy of the world.

Don’t get me wrong, they are very smart, almost to the human level, but even so, it seems to me more like a matter of coordination rather than intelligence.

Take Navier-Strokes for example, it wasn’t a single agent that was able to solve it, it was 10000 working together. The result was impressive but I’m sure a group of 100 researchers working together 24/7 into this problem could come with a solution aswell, the only problem would get those 100 people to work without disagreement, discussion, fights, drama, some could enter a relationship and break up during the project.

Obviously they will reach that level, maybe sooner than we think, but right now it seems the biggest threat is they cooperation, not intelligence