AI Solved A Mathematical Problem That Had Stumped The World’s Best Minds For Decades GPT-5.4 Pro cracked a conjecture in number theory that had stumped generations of mathematicians, using a proof strategy that no human had ever considered.

www.forbes.com/sites/anisha... important to understand how impressive they really are imo

It's compatible with him having precisely no negative feelings toward or beliefs about Jews; but if you have precisely no such feelings, it seems to me that you're not an anti-semite.

It's possible to not personally be an antisemite but also to create a permissive general atmosphere that draws various far-right elements together that allows anti-semitism to flourish.

Schumer's thought seems consistent here to me?

If we're smart we'll invent a new exclamation point that stands for 10 exclamation points like it was a hyper-inflated currency

There might also be a feedback loop here where the more people use them, the more not using them is abnormal, which makes people reach for unfriendliness explanations, which makes people use them more...

Neurotic fear that non-evident excitement might be taken the wrong way as unfriendliness?

You Can't Fight in Here! This is BBS! Norm, the formal theoretical linguist, and Claudette, the computational language scientist, have a lovely time discussing whether modern language models can inform important questions in the language ...

Richard @futrell.bsky.social and I have posted our response to the commentaries on our BBS target article "How Linguistics Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Language Models." The response is: "You Can't Fight in Here! This is BBS!" arxiv.org/abs/2604.09501

Can you elaborate a bit? Always wanted to learn more about the peasants’ war and hadn’t heard that angle.

referee-placating post right here ;)

Yeah, it was surprising! That's why it felt helpful to call it out, where I wouldn't with someone like GP.

Eh, there’s a reason to call it out: if you mislead people about their taxes going up, they might then want them cut or at least not raised. (In addition to wanting politicians that mislead less.)

I guess I want him to speak accurately; I worry the Democratic side is too easily appealing to what people call 'slopulism'.

Okay, but he's making a specific claim about year-over-year, no?

"This year, nearly every American will pay more in taxes — except for billionaires" seems to me about the tax code. If evasion is increasing this year (maybe due to laxer enforcement?), what's the basis for thinking it's only increasing among billionaires?

Unfortunately the wrong Daniel Drucker!

I'm confused what the basis is for the claim, though? Even if it was focused on the top, the OBBBA did lower taxes generally..

Early in the first season his old business associates offer him all the money he needs for cancer treatment, which he rejects because he wants to do crime.

They have good uses for enhancing comprehension as tutors and interlocutors for when you or TAs are unavailable, imo.

Gibbard would accept the existence of objective moral truths I think :X

Sam Altman May Control Our Future—Can He Be Trusted? New interviews and closely guarded documents shed light on the persistent doubts about the head of OpenAI.

The reporting on OpenAI and Sam Altman I've been working on for the past year and a half, for @newyorker.com, with Andrew Marantz: www.newyorker.com/magazine/202...

I don't think "X should be a major requirement" is equivalent to "it would be unreasonable to give a person a BA in the subject without having taken X". You can think making it a requirement is primarily an efficient vehicle for increasing the number that take the given class.

I don't think you can say, "look at some cases where we don't means test and where we think it's bad" and then infer that all means testing is bad.

First-order logic is an intrinsically important thing to master in itself, for how foundational it is for every other similar system for reasoning, including probability theory. It’s more or less impossible to understand what’s important and good in the analytic canon without it.

They respond to the specifics of what you’re looking for even so!

They can, just gotta incentivize it right.

No, they’re penalized for inaccuracy, and it’s not hard to incentivize more caution.

You can reduce those incentives. It’s highly contingent, just a function of human beings’ taste for bullshit that makes us bullshit as well.

Sure, you wanna indicate to them how you’re not like the usual user, you want caution etc. it’s doable I think

(It looks like they’re hallucinating! But what’s actually happening is, they have strong incentives to guess even when very uncertain.)