Im not sure you can make a decent business case when the space is crowded with Chinese companies doing the same thing with a fraction of the costs to hire talented staff
The government seems like it's in a rough spot. If they let Mythos out, they seem worried people could use it to mass-hack the internet. China seems to not care so much about this and they're right behind. I don't really know what the answer is.
I wonder how much of it is fears over "mass-hacking the internet", and how much of it is fears over the model discovering various NSA/CIA/etc "tailored access operations", and other deliberate side-channels / vulnerabilities / etc?
(Or perhaps vulns that NSA/etc discovered and has been keeping it private; as they're known to do).
I feel there's a lot that's unaccounted for, and the whole "AWS team reports a 'jailbreak' that is just 'review this codebase'" story doesn't add up.
I wonder if there were some parallel construction going on, and if at the same time, the NSA started losing the exploits they had because it was getting patched.
I think the latter is likely their primary concern. Certain models making hackers more effective doesn’t change that black hat hacking will still be illegal and that’s always been the prime deterrent against capable hackers.
While there is some fallout likely with much more effective hacking being easily accessible, I’m sure govt analysts (unless they were let go) have their own prediction models telling them it’s inevitable that this technology eventually makes it to everyone they don’t want having it, what with China seemingly releasing every progress they make openly. Which makes me think that they’re preparing for that inevitability by hardening the govt systems currently in place and/or by burying the secrets they want to keep hidden deeper underground.
Given the history of the US and this particular administration, I feel burying things deeper is a greater priority.
China uses the strategy of letting dangerous technologies loose which causes disruption in the short term but makes people do the right thing like secure their software. The US by comparison gives me the impression of wanting to leave the internet vulnerable by not making Mythos public so that only the US government can use Mythos to gain access to whatever system they like, which is the same thing the pegasus software does
The government isn't in a rough spot, they're just idiots. Chinese models already match Mythos in red-teaming. Anyone can use Chinese models any time they want. By holding people back from Mythos they're pushing people to Chinese models. And it worked: Chinese models now make up 70% of OpenRouter tokens (complete inversion from a year ago). Even if Chinese models weren't that great, anyone can fine-tune an open weight model specifically for red-teaming and it'll outperform any other model. So this was always going to happen.
A government staffed by logical, sane people would have figured out how not to encourage this, like mobilizing the IT and security industries to secure their products faster, while also cracking down on the "our AI is the most dangerous tool in the world" rhetoric bandied about by the frontier companies. But we don't have that, we have a government of Loony Tunes characters. When you put extremists in office you get extremist behavior.
Whether or not the government chooses to regulate the space, capricious after-the-fact regulation is the worst of all possible worlds. The ~equivalent models from OpenAI did not get the same treatment (favoritism?), and it's not clear the government has produced even rough guidelines about how to be compliant going forward.
Model prep costs far too much money to operate under this kind of regulatory regime.
It's also "out-brute forcing them." It just never gets tired. If a mathematician picks a research direction and spends a whole week on it and it doesn't pan out, they will likely be annoyed, need a break for a while, etc. This thing just does not ever get tired or discouraged or care; it's just onto the next thing until something ends up working.
loaned from German, where it's originally a way to say buttocks, literally "sitting flesh". If you have more Sitzfleisch you can sit for longer. Both in the literal sense (a bigger butt makes sitting more comfortable) and in the figurative sense (having the mental ability to sit for longer, get more desk work done)
I think there is an IT bit of humor from about 1 decade+ back where the people who's proposals won out in meeting were the ones that could keep from needing to go to the bathroom longer.
There's also a less flattering reading of the word, where Sitzfleisch means having a "flat ass" (from sitting too much, e. g. Sitzfleischparade describing a group of flat-arsed people, or something like Sitzfleischmaxxer, and so on).
Brazilian portuguese has cu de ferro, which literally translates to iron ass, something one must of course have in order to apply themselves to scholarly activities.
Wow, what a great comparison. LLMs are great at reasoning but absolute dogshit at simple arithmetic. If there's a raw calculation involved I always tell it to use python to add it all up.
If your goal is to implement an absurd comment you can use this one next time: instruct your LLM to implement Conway’s Game of Life to implement an abacus.
Because, you know, humans are notoriously poor at implementing the x86-64 instruction set in their minds. This is why God had to create Guido van Rossum.
Arguably Mathematica would be a better fit, but there are those who frequent this corner of the Internet who rather not have to read anything that might cause them to think about Stephen Wolfram.
String theory is a great example of a dead end kept alive by ego and sunk cost fallacy. An AI would have declared it dead and moved on 10 years earlier.
When people make these comments about string theory, are they at the forefront of quantum physics theory and have spent years on modern string theory? Or did they just watch a YouTube video and then keep parroting this?
You could reductio ad-absurdum this logic quite broadly. We all form beliefs about the world and its aspects, and almost always through fallible sources. Should one be confident about ones of questionable provenance? I say no. But forming beliefs from the information we have is a useful skill.
Nothing wrong with learning and being influenced. However, many posters on HN are very confident that string theory is a dead end. It makes me question if they’ve done cutting edge string theory or it is just some random software engineers who watched Sabina on YouTube.
In the age of infinite bullshit generators, the even more useful skill is being able to say "I don't know." Or "I'm not qualified to have a useful opinion on this so I'm just not going to say anything." I could write a bunch of stuff about my personal opinions on string theory and waste everyone's time, or I could just shut up and not be a human stoichastic parrot.
This isn't a great argument. Researchers who do not think string theory is good are not going to spend years on it. There are plenty of experts that dismiss string theory. I have no skin in the game, and don't care either way, fwiw.
I don't think someone needs to be a (former) string theorist to have an informed opinion on string theory, but I do think they should at least have a physics research background. Like, if someone can't explain what second quantization is, then why should I care about their opinion on string theory at all? There's just not that much room for a discerning conversation. (With the obvious caveat that I have different expectations for a real-life conversation than a discussion forum.)
Our grandparent is sort of the perfect example of an insight-free comment: confidently claiming string theory is useless (without supporting evidence) and then claiming (more like imagining, since there's again no evidence provided here) that an LLM would have abandoned such a research program long ago. What's there to discuss? The comment is based on a made-up scenario; it is, in other words, pure fiction.
The Lambda-CDM model seems to be a dead end, but instead of recognising that, picking themselves up, and moving on, the Lambda-CDM Model Industrial Complex simply papered over the gaping holes with magical thinking.
I also just keep parroting that the Earth is not flat and a bunch of other things I've been told and then never questioned, since it seems to make sense.
When the flath-earth craze started I've been trying to at least get that bit actually personally verified. Haven't managed to do it to this day, though. So I'll just keep parroting various things without properly understanding them.
Your drive to verify must be very low then. There are hundreds of small logic reasonings or even experiments with which you can easily prove that a flat earth model is at least very complicated or even impossible.
Explaining Moon phases gets very complicated in any flat earth model. With binoculars you can see the shadows of craters on the moon's terminator. Or the phases of Venus whereas Mars doesn't have any.
Timezones are ridiculously hard to explain on a flat earth.
A proper theory must explain all of them and no flat earth model can do that. A round Earth OTOH easily does.
None of that is an actual verification of round (or kinda potato shaped) Earth. You are just choosing to not think too deeply about it, essentially parroting things, just like I am.
Disproving flat Earth does not verify round Earth, after all. And all your listed refutations of flat Earth do not really disprove anything, either. They might, if you do the actual work, but you did not, choosing to just parrot someone that did put in the work.
Which was my point. It is much easier to speak vaguely and reference things than it is to actual prove something rigorously.
Disproving flat Earth doesn't logically prove round Earth, sure. But that's not how empirical reasoning works. If one model explains a bunch of observations naturally while another needs increasingly elaborate patches, that's evidence in favor of the first model.
There's a difference between "I haven't verified this myself" and "there is no good reason to believe this." You're conflating the two.
But then I've given you a few examples of thought and actual experiments that are very easy to do. That's the opposite of parroting as you can use your own mind to ponder those. But you seem to want to be ignorant, claiming that two theoretical models are equally bad just because you don't want to consider their properties for a second.
I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion. All I'm saying is that I'm just parroting these things without actually verifying them - and so are you. If flat Earth gets you all excited, I can also explain the concept with Pythagoras' theorem.
I never did a formal proof of it, yet I just use it because it works and I'm pretty sure it's true. Someone else proved it and I'm just parroting that without ever even having bothered to read the proof.
I’m disagreeing that I am just parroting things. Parroting is mindlessly repeating something. I don’t claim that all my thoughts are original but some are at least independent and self derived.
We have 2500 years of epistemology. Individual humans can reach knowledge to various degrees. It’s not a binary state of knowing or not knowing.
Take the Pythagoras example then. How is it different from parroting if you never even read and understood the proof? And alright, parroting might be a negative word and you could want to use a fancy word saying you're following heuristics instead. But it doesn't change that you maintain and propagate knowledge that you have not personally verified in a rigorous sense.
There are examples of things written in school books that were just plain wrong because no one bothered to properly verify it. We all settle for "good enough" most of the time.
> When the flat-earth craze started I've been trying to at least get that bit actually personally verified. Haven't managed to do it to this day, though.
How do I say this in the most gentle way I can...?
Your brain is broke. No, seriously. If you can help it, try not to argue with anyone about anything, ever. You have a demonstrated inability to think clearly.
The error with this approach is that every single physics theory gets exactly the same criticisms.
You can take any of the theories that Hossenfelder would spend time on instead of the ones she does not like, and you would find (basically) a similar percentage of physicists saying it's a mistake to continue in this direction.
In other terms: for each physics theory, on 100 physicists, you have 5 physicists saying it is a mistake to continue working on it (number made up for illustration, and there is probably some variations, but you get the gist). You took one theory and found few physicists saying it is a mistake to continue working on it. You conclude, incorrectly, that it means this theory is fundamentally differently treated as any other theories.
(on top of that, it is unfortunate that Hossenfelder later screw up her image by doing way too much mistakes that someone reliable would not do)
I did not ignore Susskind at all. I literally say "for each physics theory, on 100 physicists, you have 5 physicists saying it is a mistake to continue working on it". I mentioned the name of Hossenfelder, but you can replace it by "Susskind" or "Hossenfelder and Susskind", and the argument is as valid.
As for Susskind, the fact that he was a main contributor is not a factor, on the contrary, what I had in mind is about the percentage of experts in the subject that later criticize the field. You have plenty of other examples in other fields: Shiffman on SUSY, Loeb on WIMP, Hirsch on applied fusion, ... or even Einstein on quantum physics ("Yes, I may have started it but I always regarded these ideas as temporary. I never thought that others would take them so much more seriously than I did.")
Some outsiders are seeing a normal scientific process where people are continuously questioning the validity or the efficiency of things, and they start in their fantasy "look, they say it should not be done this way, it's the proof it's all wrong".
Again, what we observe with String Theory is not at all exceptional. The reason it is "a big deal" is because of the populist message and the scam around "these physicists who stole the public money". It is a bit like "vaccines cause autism": it got some media attention, it resonated with the populist conspiracy theory of "the physicists know but they are farming money" and the anti-intellectual trend, and now it has become both some kind of cultural war and an easy way to farm views and followings and show themselves as "so rebel, so edgy".
Don't get me wrong, I personally think that String Theory is overrated (and I was thinking that way before it was popular to criticize it). And the return of the pendulum means that it may now be in the edge side of the average. But nothing significant to pretend there is a particular dysfunction.
The argument that I'm making was not at all discussed in the video. Can you point to the exact time in the video this argument is made?
It looks like you just took a video with someone defending string theory and simply concluded that we have the same arguments.
My point is that you could build a similar panel (with some eminent physicists pro and con investing in the theory) about more or less all cutting-edge theories. This is just a normal situation to have. Some people don't think string theory is a good use of time, others think it is. The video you presented is just that. It does not demonstrate that having this situation is specific to string theory.
But on the core of the video, I don't find it very interesting. It's a shame because I personally find string theory overrated and I don't like it much, but it is sad to see that there is no good arguments against it.
In the video, Penrose's argument was just "I disagree on some aspect and I don't find it elegant". Big whoop, this happens all the time. He also admits that he does not know enough about it, and when he brings specifics, Greene reacts as if the objections were trivial things he and his colleagues also thought about but realised were not in fact a problem.
Not sure what to say about Weinstein. He basically ends up saying what I just said in my previous paragraph here: Penrose did not provide much argument, just "I don't find it beautiful". That being said, it's a bit strange to see him there as he has a bad reputation as a scientist (not sure I should go into details, but he claimed to have a terrific unified theory for years, TGU, and when he finally explained it publicly, the whole scientific community saw it was nonsense, which is not something you expect for someone who is reliable when talking about science). It does not mean that he may not have good points sometimes, but having pseudoscientists presented as scientists on the panel is not the best.
In fact, the situation is a bit like in open source free software: you have always people saying "you should not work on that, you should work on this instead". People working on KDE are "wasting everyone's time" for not working on Gnome and inversely. People working on a new software when alternatives exist are "bad for the community". And people using a given development paradigm are "fundamentally wrong" according to people who like the other paradigm.
So, in fact, another way of putting my argument: string theory is not particularly bad, what we see around it is in fact so common that you even see it around KDE vs Gnome.
What are you talking about? This is not my argument, this is a different argument.
His intervention (which is not even really an argument) is that "physicists chose what to work on and some of them think string theory is interesting" (and I think his interlocutor failed to provide any rebuttal to that. Weinstein counter-argument is "their choices have side effect so they should make the choice I prefer" which does not really hold water).
My point is that this specific debate that we observe around string theory happens in plenty of cutting edge physics and string theory is not "special".
In the section you mention, Greene does not even mention or make any reference of the situation in any other field than string theory. How is that even barely related?
When people discuss what to do after LHC, some people say "let's prepare for building a Future Circular Collider", to which some physicists are saying "no, that's a bad idea and a waste of money and time". Other people say "let's focus on other ways to probe particles with different kind of detectors", to which some physicists are saying "no, that's a stupid bad and a waste of money and time". Other people say "let's not continue to explore particle physics", to which some physicists are saying "no, that's a bad idea and a waste of money and time".
Whatever you say about what to do after LHC, they will always have people saying it's a bad idea. Maybe you have a personal opinion of what would be best, in which case, you are exactly in the same position as Greene: there will be people who will say "no, I don't like that".
("what to do after LHC" is just an example. There are plenty of other topics: do exotic physics or precision measurement, approach the problem top-down or bottom-up, cold fusion, modified gravity, supersymmetry, ...)
> It's also "out-brute forcing them." It just never gets tired. If a mathematician picks a research direction and spends a whole week on it and it doesn't pan out, they will likely be annoyed, need a break for a while, etc. This thing just does not ever get tired or discouraged or care; it's just onto the next thing until something ends up working.
> String theory is a great example of a dead end kept alive by ego and sunk cost fallacy. An AI would have declared it dead and moved on 10 years earlier.
Not only are LLMs perfect machines with all the intelligence of humanity without any of our problems, they are also everything else. I wait to get my hands on one of those LLMs people on hn seem to be using. I want to believe too. Let me into the religion of the perfect thinking machine gods.
No, not morons, but people who have built a career on string theory. At this point, even if they regret their decisions, it’s too late to turn back now.
I don't think it's a good argument. String theory is just "one application" of advanced mathematical physics. It's like saying that software developers specialised in ReactJS would lose their career if ReactJS is suddenly abandoned.
Not a fair comparison because one is exposed to real life market forces vs. academic inertia.
ReactJS devs will retrain when the market dies. Professors still publishing theories/experiments costing large amounts of public monies better spent elsewhere.
There is no more inertia in the academic sector than in the software developer sector.
You have tons of software developers that cling to their preferences for ages. They have their beloved language, or beloved paradigm, and they will invent any excuse to explain how relevant it is. It is also visible with current LLM, where there are plenty of software developer islands where they blanket ban LLM usage as an emotional response. There is a big contrast with the academic sector where the most sceptical people did not blanket banned it, but find way to put guardrails (and I'm sure you can find anecdotal places that are emotionally against LLM in academia, but it is an order of magnitude lower than in the software development sector).
Same about "real life market forces". Especially when at the same time people criticize, correctly, the "publish or perish" hyper-competitiveness problem in academia. The reality is that a physicist need to retrain plenty of time, probably as much as a ReactJS dev. But that reality flies high above the head of people who jump into the first caricatural idea they have about the sector.
As for "costing large amounts of public monies", you don't seem to even know what you are talking about. String Theory probably costs society way less than plenty of other useless things, and still managed to provide very useful tools that are used in mathematical physics outside of string theory (not that I'm saying it was worth it, but it is just not fair to pretend that they did not produce anything). In contrast, the software development sector has a huge contribution on enshittification, stealing user data, making porn, creating social media addiction and creating financial bubbles that splash in the whole economy. Between the two, there is clearly one that is way more toxic on the society.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not interested in "taking side" and particularly defending physicists. I'm sure they are making mistakes and wasting money, like any other sectors, and that we still should find these places and fix them. But your depiction is so caricatural that I had to rebalance the situation by reassessing the facts.
There is no more inertia in the academic sector than in the software developer sector.
That is not true. In academia you have extremely niche research specializations and tenure as two major contributors to inertia. In general software development you have an enormous amount of career mobility.
Software developers learn new languages, new frameworks, new tools, new development methodologies all the time. A string theorist who decides to pivot away from string theory essentially has to start their career over from scratch. It’s not even close!
It's not even clear where String Theory is categorized in this article. Maybe High Energy Physics? Maybe Condensed Matter? It already shows how broad it is, as they already consider that people with such a different specific subject (for example theoretical dark matter in HEP or superconductivity in Condensed Matter) are not even "changing field" when they move to String Theory.
In this article, you can see on Figure 1 that about 65% of physicists (similar in HEP and CondMatter) are also working on subjects that are in one other category (so, it's not even that the person is doing String Theory and another subject inside their own group, like dark matter or superconductivity, it is more like String Theory and Astrophysics).
In Figure 2, you can see that 38% (resp. 21%) that have started their career as specialist in HEP (resp. CondMatter) ended up changing specialisation within about 5 years. (and this is "voluntary", it means that "changing specialisation" is in reality pretty easy, as of course the majority of people could change easily but just decide not to because they don't see the point of changing)
Even without this study, you can easily check the reality yourself. If I do a search on "computational tools for string theory", the first result I get is https://compstring.org/.
First, if you look at the list of participants, you will notice their CVs and how diverse they are, with background or even current activities in: SUSY, QFT, CFT, condensed matter, cosmology, quantum gravity, black hole thermodynamics, ...
Second, if you look at the software, you will see the majority are very recent (2025, 2023 and 2025). Each of them require learning the specific framework, with new rules, new ways of describing the problem and new ways of making the software do what you want. This is similar to passing from ReactJS to Angular (both are about 10 years old, so in fact, the String Theory community seems to change framework more often than devs).
You can also look up in wikipedia, the famous names in String Theory, they all have plenty of activities that go well beyond string theory (which means the reality is even stronger, as they were not even forced to do something else, they've done it because it was trivial for them to also work on these subjects): Maldacena and Susskind on black holes and wormholes, Shenker on quantum chaos, Seibert on SUSY, Strominger on gravitational waves, Fischler on blackholes production in particle colliders, Kounnas on GUTs, ...
> A string theorist who decides to pivot away from string theory essentially has to start their career over from scratch. It’s not even close!
That's just factually not true. And I've provided data that demonstrate that. It looks like you have no idea what a string theorist is doing and how they can transition to another field.
You were the one introducing the argument "they are getting advantages out of it so we should be careful to not take what they say as an impartial view". Same can be told of Hossenfelder (personally, I would say that Hossenfelder has shown more clues that indeed she is not very reliable and would prefer caricatural sensationalistic descriptions, which is not what the typical string theory physicist does).
No, my point was only to refute the idea that people need to be egotistical or moronic (the only two options) to cling to an idea past its expiry date. People could also be “pot-committed” career-wise. Or they could have myriad other reasons (identity, sunk-cost fallacy, etc).
Nowhere did I suggest that “the reason for discrediting string theorists is that they have financial stakes in the idea.” Please try to be more charitable than that.
> No, not morons, but people who have built a career on string theory. At this point, even if they regret their decisions, it’s too late to turn back now.
This is not presented as "yet another option that may or may not be the reality", this is presented as your conclusion of why we observe what we observe.
Maybe it is not what you are thinking, but you cannot blame people for interpreting your message the way you have written it.
I agree with you that there are several options, one of the most probable, that you did not mention, is that the situation of the string theory is just "normal" and some idiots are not able to understand that.
This is a pretty silly belief to hold about science. Plenty of strong, well held standards of the modern era were considered ridiculous fringe beliefs a century ago.
Not taking either side here - but surely a lot of cosmological phenomena couldn't be testable/verifiable at the time they were theorized either?
(thinking of black holes for example - they were theorized way before we had observations. And presumably a lot of particle physics can similarly be theorized before we built the technology to experimentally verify them)
Black holes were theorized and you could design experiments that, given the proper instruments, would allow them to be detected. Relativity was similar (famously, the curvature of spacetime was demonstrated during a solar eclipse by being able to see stars that should have been behind the sun).
String theory has nothing even theorized that would allow us to prove it.
String theory, being a high-energy theory, predicts that at high energies things will look “stringy.” It’s not untestable in principle. But it is out of reach of current experiments. I think that distinction is important.
Same as the parallel comment: the situation of string theory is the same as with black holes and relativity. It is not it is not testable, it is that it is not testable yet. The situation is very similar of the situations of black holes and relativity at their own time.
The fact that so many people, like you, just INVENT that it is not testable is quite worrying. Why? What's the point of doing that?
No one has "invented" that it's untestable. String theory literally doesn't give predictions that would allow it to be falsified. There are an astounding number of possible geometries that mean that any set of data could technically be "consistent with string theory". There are no specific energy bounds where it kicks in - if an experiement doesn't show existence of strings, it's "try again with more energy" instead of "falsified".
String theory can't be disproved even in theory. Spending decades on that is akin to spending decades rearchitecting your software to make it more beautiful and full of design patterns and promising users/management that some day it'll all make sense.
First, it is incorrect to say that "any set of data is consistent with string theory". For example, string theory is death in water if we observe a single Majorana fermion with no partner at a comparable scale. This is an observation that fully falsifies string theory.
But more importantly, "falsifiable" means "observations reduce the landscape". It does not matter if the landscape never fully disappear, as long as the observations constrain the parameters of the theory, then the theory is falsifiable. This is the real condition for a theory to be unfalsifiable. Astrology is not falsifiable: whatever the observation, the full astrology theory remains exactly the same, nothing has been constrained.
Why is it the correct definition? Because your definition leads to illogical situations. For example, I can divide "string theory" into "string theory of region 1", "string theory of region 2", "string theory of region 3", ... which are all in different parameters space. In this case, suddenly, "string theory of region 1" can be fully excluded. But it is illogical to pretend that "string theory of region 1" is suddenly "good falsifiable science" just because you renamed it while the physics is 100% the same. Another example of illogical situation is "an observed theory suddenly qualifies as falsifiable" (cf. the example with the electromagnetism below).
Also, "try again with more energy" is very common in beyond standard model physics. It is the case for lepton compositeness, heavy bosons, fourth lepton generation, SUSY, all of Effective Field Theory, ... None of these theories are abandoned because "unfalsifiable". The argument that string theory is bad because unfalsifiable feels like a bad faith argument while plenty of other physicists activities have the same characteristics but people who are against string theory does not care when physicists work on those.
It's also the case with common theories like electromagnetism or weak force: we are happy with them because we have observed them, but theoretically (in their current formulation), their parameters are free: if the alpha constant was 10 to the power -100, electromagnetism would have been undetectable up to now (the world would be quite different, but still). And if in this parallel universe a physicist would have came up with the theory and tried to observe it and failed, they could have always said "well, it just means that the alpha constant is even smaller". So, do you agree that electromagnetism is a non falsifiable theory because the alpha constant is a free parameter and could have been arbitrarily small? Because if not, you are saying that exactly the exact same theory is sometimes falsifiable, sometimes unfalsifiable, depending on where the free parameters are: right now string theory is unfalsifiable, but if we observe cosmic superstrings, suddenly, the theory qualifies as falsifiable.
Finally, the more you eliminate part of the landscape, the more the credibility of the theory decreases. And even if some part of landscape remains, the theory is abandoned when it is virtually useless.
String theory necessitates observable objects to remain viable as an useful theory (for example, SUSY particles, specific inflationary signature, ...). If these are not observed, the theory is not 100% rejected, but it becomes "useless": it will prove that the reality needs another fix than the string theory to explain some of the problem we observe in the current standard model. In other term, "string theory" can always remain a possibility, but "string theory as the answer of the current problems" would be 100% rejected and physicists will start working on other theories.
The idea that you pretend that physicists will still work on string theory when all the "juice" would been removed due to constraints is just so surreal to me. The reason string theory is popular amongst physicists is because they want to understand the current problems and that, according to them, string theory is a good candidate to explain them. It is crazy to imagine that when we have demonstrated that string theory cannot explain these problems, people whose main motivation is to explain these problems would say "we know we will not get anything of what we want if we work on this subject, but, hey, it's theoretically not fully excluded, so, I have to continue for eternity before passing to a more promising subject".
We're in too deep to let go of each other now, Cauch. Stalking? No. I'd say, unsolicited following.
On a serious note, I was reflecting the other day and recognize I need to do better with how I address people online. I genuinely apologize for my part in our nasty interaction. It's something I've struggled with, but I will do better.
Too deep? Have you considered seeking help? Our interaction should not be a big deal for balanced people. I had forgotten about it myself and moved on. If you cannot, it shows there is something wrong going on and maybe it should worry you.
As for the unsolicited following, I'm not sure what you would get out of it. I guess you will regularly spew your bile. But it does not really affect me, it just confirms I'm right about what I think of you. The "unsolicited following" perfectly fits the character, it is not really an action that you expect from the "winning side" of the story.
Damn, you really do have issues. Welp, I tried. Seek help my man.
I personally don't care how you respond to my apology; I don't say that defiantly. I just believe that I should own any toxicity I spewed unnecessarily.
But how you respond to someone's genuine apology speaks volumes about how rotten you have become as a person. And I say that in a factual manner; not in any retaliatory way. You are a truly rotten person.
If you have any, I truly feel sorry for your spouse and any children.
Anyways Cauch, best of luck, bud. May your spirit one day be free from the anger and bitterness that oozes from your being.
I think that if you wanted me to be compassionate, you should have avoided to be so creepy. Put yourself in my shoes, I just feel like I'm been accosted by a drunk who want to both become my best bud and shout at me. And because of that, I'm, on purpose, avoiding to give you any compassion or any other excuse to believe I care about you. That's the best strategy with this kind of crazies.
And this is quite creepy: 1. tracking me back, months after we had our discussion, as if it is something you still think about, this is super creepy, 2. saying, even under the cover of humour (cf. next point), that we're "in too deep" or that it is an "unsolicited following", this is creepy, 3. and bringing all that as a "joke", that is just so bizarre, it reminds me of the caricatural obsessive date "oh we should definitively move in together ... just joking ... and decide the name of our future children ... just joking ahahah ..."
So, yeah, just consider that I'm a rotten person if it helps you, or blame others for not showing you the compassion you crave when you admit that you have been shitty with them. You are not relevant to me, I've forgotten about you so fast last time and I can easily block your username if I decide I have better entertainment elsewhere, and I truly don't care about whatever fantasy you invented about me in your strange brain.
I'm not considering that you're a rotten person. I'm telling you that as a matter of fact. You're not able to see it and I understand that. One day you're young and full of life; the next, you're a middle-aged man that is bitter.
I wouldn't expect someone who finds themselves in that state to pick up on it.
You mentioned the caricature that it reminds you of. That is a reflection of something that is taking place inside you and baggage that you bring into an interaction that doesn't merit it. If you can't discern that, that is not something I, or anyone else, can help you with.
You mentioned that I wanted compassion from you. The fact that you're so comfortable making that assumption says a lot about the intellectual integrity you have and the lack of honesty you bring to discussions in your life. Nobody was expecting compassion. However, I emphasize once again and my point remains: how you respond to someone's genuine apology speaks volumes about you.
I know that reflection in the mirror is one you will try to deny and rationalize away, but it's one you should reflect on and, who knows, maybe even use as moment in your life that catapults you into change.
You pointed out, almost in "gotcha" fashion that I admit I have been shitty with people -- I have. 100%. The difference between you and I is not that I have been shitty and you haven't. It's that I still have something inside me that compels to own my shitiness and change. You don't. You're comfortable in your rotteness.
You'll block my username only when the truth of my words hurts too much. Otherwise, being the rotten person you are, you will continue to enjoy the back and forth because you get off on the rage.
Anyways, I'm about to go workout and enjoy my day. I am releasing you Cauch!
I'm still not sure what you imagine this conversation will do. What do you think will happen? You know I think you are ridiculous and pathetic, already from the previous conversation. And you're coming back after months to do this strange little dance, it just looks so unhinged. Do you really think this whole conversation will change that, and not in fact reconfirming that my first impression was correct?
I feel that you are trying to convince me that you are very wise by doing more and more unhinged things. I'm not sure why you think this would even work.
As I've said, I'm 100% fine to know that you think I'm rotten. You already insulted me previously, I got the message and I can't care less, so why come back to do it again? Why would you think I will take you seriously now? Are you "trying to save me from myself"? That's not really convincing: coming back to a stranger on the internet after few months for pure altruism, that is not something that a sane person would do (especially as you were pretending that you did not care at all). Instead of "trying to save me from myself", the readers will suspect that you came back because you still have things on your chest, and that this conversation is more for you than for me. That's sad.
This conversation won't change the fact that you like this. Bitter people like having a vehicle they can't get their toxicity out on. That is why you can't help yourself and you continue.
At this point, every single one of your responses is just a reflection of you, not me.
You keep saying you don't care. But you can't help yourself from responding to me every single time.
You do care, Cauch. You care because the toxicity in your bones that you refuse to let go of needs an online enemy you can't direct your toxicity towards.
The "untestable" meme is just a thought terminating cliche. It's as if you believe no researchers ever considered the brilliant insight that the framework is difficult to test. History is littered with plenty of examples of a novel discovery, understanding, or technology yielding new opportunities for experimental design.
It's also a glib dismissal of the unexpected mathematical elegance of string theory that makes it so compelling. Worse, it completely ignores the material contributions to applied physics that string theory has made possible which is obviously worth "spending your life's work on" - as if people need to justify the value of their life's work to disinterested onlookers lest they be demeaned.
The key here is that it’s depending on the human inability to connect the sum of relevant knowledge, but said knowledge comes from humans.
Theres going to be this field day of low-hanging fruit that ML can round up, but after that I suspect it will be in fits and starts as a “connection maker” rather than some proof producer.
I think we're underestimating just how much low hanging fruit there is. I've been trying to apply this LLM research process to physics (QM and solid state) and there is so much missing in Physlib and the rest of the Lean ecosystem that most of my work has been trying to formalize the theories and validating them against the specification problem (and mostly failing badly).
It's not only going to be "connection maker". If and when robotics advance to a point where the LLMs are embodied, they can run experiments in the physical world and find new knowledge.
So applied math, math, applied math, applied math, and maybe some others.
That makes sense, although I'd argue that at least in the realm of HEP theoretical physics has extraordinarily expensive kit compared to what scientists make. See: The LHC.
I think it's telling that "Researchers cost more than any other aspect of research" seems to involve primarily math as inputs and outputs. Like I said the obvious outlier is theoretical physics because that tends to involve significant resources both to explore (supercomputers) and verify (colliders, telescopes, interferometers, etc). Most people involved in research in any number of fields do not find that their collective salaries are the majority of the cost required; math is an outlier in many cases.
Robots in labs already exist, but mercifully they're not hooked up to anything as unpredictable as an LLM. Robots tend to work best as specialists doing high-throughput, extremely repetitive tasks which nonetheless require a degree of precision. Giving a robot a "human" body makes very little sense if we're talking about the needs and productivity of a non-human; humanoid robots are marketing for humans.
Humanoid robots are obviously more than marketing. The entirety of human civilization is human shaped. Making robots that are human shaped is easier and more efficient than redesigning and rebuilding everything that exists.
> The entirety of human civilization is human shaped.
That's the marketing pitch.
A plumbing robot doesn't need to be humanoid, an octopus shape may well be better for all the awkward corners. A robot police officer could be the municipality itself for sensory nodes (essentially the sales pitch of Flock etc.), plus some drones or robot dogs to perform arrests*.
The robot vacuum cleaners and lawnmowers we already have are nothing like a human. A robot taxi driver can be just the car. Robot dogs are already used for maintenance and security sweeps.
If you've got wheelchair access, you've got wheeled robot access. If you've got guide dog access, you've got access for Boston Dynamics' Spot.
* this may be a bad idea with current robotics, but I aver it's not improved by making those robotics humanoid.
You are not understanding what humanoid robots are about. Those are specialist robots you are describing. The promise is of course one robot that can do the plumbing, clean your house, do the dishes, build a house, and basically every physical job a human can do. It's extreme lly likely that at least a somewhat humanoid shape is required for that.
Humans are really bad at everything we do compared to the specialized creatures in nature, it’s just that we can do many things that sets us apart.
A humanoid robot is incredibly dumb for that reason. At least add a set of arms and legs and 360 vision. And obviously dislocated joints than can move freely and hands should have two thumbs and more fingers.
It’s not hard to come up with a bunch of improvements for humans, it’s just that making robots in our image is a lot more trivial because you only have to solve for those same averages attributes that we have.
Adding arms and 360 vision is not free. Look at octopi with their insane nervous system required to support their tentacle. The one who wins is not the one that makes the best robot ever. The one who wins is the one who builds a robot that can do the most, while being the cheapest.
Vision is hard regardless of the angle, but scaling it from a normal camera to 360° doesn't add much cost or difficulty once you've done the hard part of turning pixels into a suitable latent space.
> Look at octopi with their insane nervous system required to support their tentacle.
500 million neurons across the whole animal, brain included. We'll only know the synapse count when someone does a full connectome scan of one, but based on the vague estimates I see with a quick search, their whole mind is less complex than a SotA LLM today.
> The one who wins is the one who builds a robot that can do the most, while being the cheapest.
This is a reason for specialists, not generalists.
The best container ship is a terrible pleasure yacht, and vice versa. You use container ships pretty much constantly, even though you (almost certainly) don't own one, by the power of indirection. You can rent a pleasure yacht as desired without owning own.
I will ignore the insane comparison between neurons and LLMs. But
> This is a reason for specialists, not generalists.
Precisely not. The amount of work a human can do is basically unenumerable. Requiring a specialist for each task will quickly run up costs to be completely unreasonable.
> I will ignore the insane comparison between neurons and LLMs. But
Please don't.
I mean, you yourself specifically said to "Look at octopi with their insane nervous system", and that's exactly what I'm doing and my conclusion is "doesn't look that bad compared to what else we do now".
Also note that I expressly noted that synapses, not neurons, are the important factor in parameter count.
> The amount of work a human can do is basically unenumerable.
> Requiring a specialist for each task will quickly run up costs to be completely unreasonable.
The existence of specialists in professional settings proves this claim false.
As does the existence of special-purpose robots, all the way down to injection moulds designed for one specific part, which overall make the end product cheaper, a process which probably started with whoever invented whichever came first of the wind or water powered grain mill.
Much of the economic gain of the industrial revolution was replacing the very expensive salaries of general-purpose humans with machines that, despite being extremely single-purpose and having high purchase and maintenance costs, were still cheaper than the wages of the huge number of humans needed for equal output.
Since the industrial revolution we have been the species that makes tools even though it sometimes also uses slavery, not the species that relies on slaves and has tools for decorative reasons.
Yeah. Can't wait to see three or four armed robots. Or five or six!
How do you train a robot to use three hands effectively when we only have two? Then again, why is the robot limited to being one robot? If two humanoid robots are in the same area, they don't have to be distinctly controlled. If they're both controlled by the same AI, a third arm on one body is the same as that arm being attached to another body.
Things you need to take into account that you've almost certainly glossed over:
Safety. Human-robot interactions are generally dangerous and avoided, unless the robot is specifically designed to interact with people. In those cases you often sacrifice speed, strength, and flexibility for safety and softness. Having someone come in with a specialized plumbing robot makes sense, you owning one probably doesn't, and you owning a generalize android capable of plumbing makes less sense still.
Cost. The more compact, complex, and interactive your robot is the more it costs. Make a strong, compact, complex robot safe for interactions with people in the wild is non-trivial and adds costs. The software required to do all of this is hypothetical, but obviously also costly.
Need. I understand the dream of a robot to do whatever you want is very much part of our culture, but when you consider the downsides do you really need it? I don't need a plumber living in my house any more than I need a carpenter or a landscaper to live on premises. At most these are services I would need occasionally or on a schedule. I also doubt my need for them will overlap much, unless we're talking about building a new dwelling.
So why do I need a generalist in my life that's going to cost more than you can imagine, when the means to hire existing human generalists is cheap, quick, and frankly less likely to accidentally punch a hole in you.
Generalist humanoid robots that are able to operate in unstructured environments weren't an option (they still aren't an option for the majority of operations). The humanity had no ways of building them.
Anyway, it's true that replacing an automated production line with a crowd of generalist robots doesn't make sense. Generalist humanoid robots are intended to replace the remaining human workers.
They weren't an option because they are much harder to build, that's my point. Fat from being the easy option, they are still the unlikely option, compared to purpose designed machines.
Historically this has never been correct. Turns out you get more efficient systems when designing them without how a human would accomplish a task in mind.
Outside of sci-fi, marketing proposals, and niches like "Elder care in Japan" there are very few humanoid robots. By contrast non-humanoid robots have been mass produced and used in industry for decades. Arms. Carts. Trollies.
No people. If you want something with fine motor control and dexterity, it's easier to make that the robot and then have another robot bring the workpiece to the arm than it is to build a single robot that can walk around and do it. There are compromises in human features because we're generalists.
Counterpoint: something has happened in frontier models, and yes they now get discouraged and will sometimes prefer to not continue working on a problem unless you tell them to anyway.
I don't know how or why this would be trained on behavior, but no, it isn't true anymore that models don't say things like, "Ugh," or "this is going to take hours and maybe we should stop here."
A new technology being able to do something better than humans does not mean it’s intelligent though. A calculation program is not intelligent just because it can remember more digits than me, work more than me
Because, what's really happening is we're saying "Oh these things are what defines intelligence" then implementing them and /discovering/ "oh wait, there's more to this than we knew".
We've known, for decades, for example that an IQ test is not a measure of Intelligence, even though people still refer to it as though it is. A computer passing an IQ test, therefore, would have been thought of as possessing intelligence way back when, but would not now.
Oh, on the point of "creativity" - is a RNG "creative"? It creates a value unbounded by human intervention (in theory, yes Pseudo RNGs have limitations) - therefore it must be creative... right?
But the difference really does matter and is not just a case of "whittling down" what intelligence really is.
We have known for a very long time that computers and machines are much faster than humans, more accurate, are scalable in certain ways that humans aren't, and they don't tire. I think most people who are not in the "AI cult" would agree that LLMs and modern generative AI are really just an extension of those faster/more accurate/more scalable and never tiring traits. But there does seem to be (and I'm sure folks much smarter than I have quantified this or described it better than I can) a fundamental difference in how humans think, especially as it applies to what true "understanding" really entails, and for the ability to think up truly novel and unique things that are not just a rejiggering/recombination of training data. I believe those skills really are at the heart of human cognition, and as impressive as LLMs are in replicating what this looks like, there are plenty of "LLM failure modes" where it's clear that LLMs lack a true understanding of concepts or the ability to generate useful, completely novel ideas.
There's definitely a lot missing from the current state of the art in machine learning that all brains manage to beat, and we can observe this just because an animal that needs as many examples as an AI to learn motor functions would starve to death before learning to eat.
However I can only guess that this is important, I'm not absolutely certain. They're at risk of being an economic disruptor just by being extremely stupid (by how much they need to study) faster than us to the same ratio we jog faster than continental drift.
Nobody knows what true "understanding" really entails, or what are "truly novel and unique things that are not just a rejiggering/recombination of training data". For the latter, you'd at least have to find an example in history of someone who came up with some idea that has been widely considered "truly novel" by experts, who didn't have any education or training, so no "rejiggering/recombination".
> If a mathematician picks a research direction and spends a whole week on it and it doesn't pan out, they will likely be annoyed, need a break for a while, etc.
Your timelines are a bit unambitious. There's nobody expecting to make significant progress with a week of work.
If a thousand monkeys typed at a character per second, on a keyboard with the 23 relevant characters, it would take roughly 10^136 years for them to come up with this counterexample. Though, to be fair to monkey scenario, there's a large family of them known now, so it's not quite this bad: suppose there are a trillion permutations and similar examples that fit in this string. Then we are down to 10^124 years.
If LLMs are monkeys, somehow trained LLM weights allow them to model and prune massive numbers of universes in parallel.
Just FTR - 1 character per second is glacially slow - it's 12 wpm - fine for (slow) transcription, but the monkey typing exercise doesn't require them to know what they are typing out
Considering it's random characters being typed, and a skilled typist who is aiming to accurately type words out can hit between 70 and 100 words per minute - I would say that my monkeys could "type" an order of magnitude faster than 1 char per second
It seems like you're arguing with this guy for the sake of argument. If anesthetics "yielded some improvement" in Alzheimer's temporarily then any surgery would get the same effect and we would already know about it. And what is the second point you are trying to make here - that zero surgeries are ever performed annually on Alzheimer's patients for any reason? And of the ones that are, the family wouldn't notice the dramatic cognitive improvement shown in this article, but they noticed it here?
I was not trying to say anaesthetics are actually the cure, it’s an example of the kind of elimination that has to be done to prove something is actually effective.
Look up how double blind tests are done on things that involve surgeries (eg implants)
> And of the ones that are, the family wouldn't notice the dramatic cognitive improvement shown in this article, but they noticed it here?
Because they’re primed to look for that improvement because they’re told that is the expected outcome
It is true. I don't care about having infinite frontier-level intelligence, and I don't care if Fable can one-shot frobnicate a klaxelzorp with a benchmark performance of 97%. I doubt most people do, in fact. I just want something that meets the baseline level of intelligence needed to be a really, really good pair programming agent. It shouldn't have any silly dealbreaker issues involving laziness or hallucinations, it should be smart enough to bounce ideas off of, and it should automate doing tedious boilerplate. And - most of all - I want to be able to afford using it as much as I want. That's what has happened here.
I wonder when we crossed the "99 percentile of intelligence for 99% of the usecases" threshold. At this point, the gains seem to be right at the very edge of bleeding edge for narrow and specialized use cases, and wonder if it'll be a sort of diminishing return from here on.
With those cheap models the idea is you're still in the loop anyway so the more expensive model is a waste of time and money. In this case, that means you're steering the game to look like you want not how AI wants.
reply