Algostonk

go fuck yourself @sama claiming that you solved navier stokes because 10000 agents ran in circles for 88hours on a multimillion dollar gpu cluster to formalize in lean a blowup case under controlled external forcing is pure scientific vulgarity the clay mathematics institute millennium prize does not ask m whether you can artificially force a singularity in a fluid by injecting an ad hoc smooth external forcing term f(x,t) to twist the vortex until it breaks the real problem questions the fundamental stability and global smooth existence for 3dimensional incompressible euler & navier stokes equations under natural conservation laws and viscous dissipation alone using a mathematical loophole on forced equations to parade a century old victory is a major conceptual scam Altman technically & epistemologically what you present as an agi breakthrough is nothing more than bruteforce combinatorial autoformalization the ai did not understand fluid mechanics it simply navigated a continuous search space previously mapped out and constrained by the monumental work of human mathematicians like tristan buckmaster/ levent alpöge / diego córdoba or tarek elgindi coordinating 10000 agents to check the logical consistency of a 100 page proof via lean is a software engineering feat and computational parallelization triumph not an intrinsic scientific discovery it is the victory of the compute bulldozer over abstract human intuition repackaged for the public as a higher mathematical consciousness to this theoretical imposture you add a disgusting ethical and industrial cynicism taking advantage of private codex sessions and informal preprints from academic researchers to siphon their research leads and then trying to redact or erase the contribution of levent alpöge under the pretext that he works at rival anthropic is intellectual serfdom openai behaves like a feudal lord of silicon appropriating the cognitive subsistence of independent scholars threatening their careers behind closed doors if they protest and turning community academic labor into a privatized pressrelease this entire staged event serves a desperate financial agenda in a pre ipo panic facing the slowdown of scaling laws and growing investor skepticism over the profitability of foundational models openai needs to manufacture an artificial sputnik moment claiming to solve a millennium prize without immediately submitting the proof to traditional peer review means using the prestige of fundamental mathematics as cheap marketing fuel to inflate a delusional valuation!!! real science is not a clout chase on social media or a compute spike spent to rob the clay mathematics institute it is a quest for elegance physical truth and universal rigor to decode reality true artificial intelligence will not emerge from hostile corporate takeover of academic work hidden behind computational bruteforce but from architectures capable of generating new conceptual paradigms by masquerading constrained formalization as the collapse of physics greatest mysteries you did not solve navier stokes you only proved how far silicon valley will go to prostitute scientific integrity for capitalist spectacle

Grok 4.6 has a great sense of humor 😂

I'm actually fairly bearish on frontier lab valuations. I've never seen the reasons articulated to my satisfaction, so before I go to sleep, I wanted to quickly jot down my thinking here. The basic issue is that the labs are highly unprofitable. This may seem like a simple point, but private market valuations can be relatively irrational; however, like with $SPCX, post-IPO pricing will likely be much more punishing, especially as the standard 6-month lockup period expires and selling pressure intensifies. Many people claim that the labs have high margins. Yet even with high margins, a valuation of $1T would be justified only if the labs were doing nothing aside from serving inference (thus reducing costs only to those relevant to inference) and posting annual revenue numbers in the $100-200 billion range assuming ~80% gross margin and a 20x earnings multiple. This assumption is obviously not true, because the frontier labs have to continually spend money training the next generation of models. This is because of market competition from runner-up firms. For example, if OpenAI had paused model development last year, there would no longer be any point in paying GPT-5 API prices when you can just use Qwen or Kimi instead for much cheaper. Thus, the labs are forced to invest ever-increasing amounts of money in model training, in a way such that at any given point of time, the amount you're forced to invest in the next model is dramatically higher than the amount of money you're actually making, because even if your revenue goes up with higher model capabilities, so do your future training costs. This is a profoundly punishing dynamic which severely penalizes frontrunners. (There is also a related subpoint where frontier labs claim they can distill their leading models to win out at lower intelligence levels as well. This makes no sense because the revenue numbers involved are far too low when taking into consideration the rather low margin of such inference.) Frontier lab valuations appear largely to be based on the assumption that as you scale up, the capabilities which emerge will be sufficiently general and profound that we'll see explosive growth (epoch.ai/publications/explos…) from things akin to AI agents starting and autonomously managing entire companies of subagents. But it's not clear to me that this is the case; indeed, as I mentioned in my previous post (teapawt.net/andrewho03/status/2082…), I believe that capabilities growth will be slower, spikier, and more data-limited than people currently assume. It may be the case that eventually we will see explosive growth of this nature with full automation of the economy, but at the very least my viewpoint implies much longer (multi-decade) timelines until we reach this point. It is not clear to me that the frontier labs will be able to operate unprofitably for so long, although I suppose maybe this foreshadows some sort of inevitable nationalization. I also want to make a broader point about technological diffusion. The reason why technological diffusion is slow isn't just because, e.g., old people take a long time to learn how to use technology (although this is of course a contributing factor to some degree). In my view, it's because when a new, revolutionary technology comes along, the ways to incorporate that technology into subsequent developments are not always obvious, and in fact they cannot necessarily be arrived at through the application of pure reason. If they could be, then perhaps frontier models, at a certain point, would have a perfect understanding of how the LLM application layer should be developed, and they would then autonomously code, deploy, and sell such a layer. But it seems more plausible to me that this diffusion is limited moreso by the hard problem of economic calculation--that is to say, the Hayekian notion through which the price system gradually promotes efficient allocation of resources and which cannot be simulated through central planning--and that even if we froze current capability levels at today's levels, it would take well over two decades to fully integrate in LLMs into our lives. Such a view is consequently rather bearish for the continued profitability of labs as it reduces their prospects for finding, say, something else comparable in profitability to coding agents, which seems to have been a somewhat lucky discovery by Anthropic to begin with. That is to say, even if you spam FDEs you aren't necessarily going to be able to just figure out the "correct" product shapes fast enough. Overall, I don't think that people have clearly reasoned through their mental models for why lab equity should be worth as much as it currently is, and that if you actually bother to write down such a model, you may not arrive at the conclusion that you want to arrive at. This isn't to say that I don't expect AI to experience a huge (industry-wide) boom in the coming decades, but just that I'm not entirely sure I would buy OpenAI or Anthropic stock at latest valuations if I were given the opportunity to do so. Of course, as an ex-lab employee, arguably this is talking against my own book; I should really be giving people more reasons to be bullish. But in the end, my influence is so small that it doesn't make a difference, so why not have some fun?

We are starting Intent Lab, building an autonomous team we call "fleet" that turns intent into production software. Today we are sharing some early results: the fastest GLM5.2 inference engine, one shot database creation, and a fully verified agent filesystem. intentlab.ai/blog/turn-your-…

Adobe spent decades building software that’s still incredibly hard to replicate. -34% ytd “agent infra” startups building thin layers like proxies, sandbox, llm telemetry, that your team could probably vibe-code internally or just ask your agent to deploy open source ones: raising at crazy valuation. I'm confused.

hello there the jacobian conjecture is false thanx to my close friend akhil for asking about it and my other close friend fable for working during the world cup final ((1+xy)^3 z + y^2 (1+xy) (4+3xy), y + 3 x (1+xy)^2 z + 3 x y^2 (4+3xy), 2 x - 3 x^2 y - x^3 z): \C^3\to \C^3, has jacobian determinant -2, and sends (0, 0, -1/4), (1, -3/2, 13/2), and (-1, 3/2, 13/2) to (-1/4, 0, 0)

Complex Feature Engineering at Two Sigma with Ben Wellington (S7E32) My guest this episode is Ben Wellington, Head of Complex Feature Engines at Two Sigma. In a modern quant process, one might argue that edge can live in three places: the data you can get your hands on, what you do with that data, and how you forecast from it. Ben lives squarely in the middle layer — feature generation — which also happens to be the place AI is reshaping fastest. So that's where we spend our time. We start with what a "feature" even is, and why, as raw data gets commoditized, the edge increasingly comes from what you build out of it. Then we follow the thread running through the whole conversation: large language models. Ben has a line I keep coming back to — that anything can be language now — and we trace what that unlocks, and whether making feature creation this cheap just democratizes the edge away. We close on what a quant starting out today should be building toward, and which skills compound most in a career where AI is the dominant tool. Please enjoy my conversation with Ben Wellington.