You could, you know, stop spreading deception about water usage if it bothers you so much when people call out deception about water usage.

At this point, I almost consider it trolling to bring it up: purposely throw in something incredibly stupid, and then throw a hissy fit when predictably called out on it.

I, personally, do not bring up the water thing. So you're talking to the wrong person here.

Someone complaining about water usage is a very strong indicator that they aren't well-informed enough to contribute anything worth reading, though.

You still have to grapple with the merits of their argument to find out if the indicator is correct or not.

In a world where everybody seems to be quoting grok with no further thought process you would think people would be more welcoming of someone who is "slightly wrong" on occasion. It's the strongest indicator that a flawed human being got their information not directly from a machine.

No, I don't.

If someone is spreading deception, intentionally or not, then it's entirely within my rights to point out they are without engaging further. If they want to be taken seriously, they have to at least indicate that they are willing to self-correct in the face of direct evidence that they are wrong.

> If someone is spreading deception, intentionally or not, then it's entirely within my rights to point out they are without engaging further.

What is it with millennials and "rights"? It's a sincere question. People don't owe you anything and neither do you owe me anything, sure... so why do you demand another have a higher standard that you yourself hold to. I know you don't hold yourself to that standard because you would rather nitpick someone on a single inaccuracy then grapple with a very real issue (which you yourself would not appreciate if they did that to you). The respectable thing to do is to note the inaccuracy and approach the valid portion of the argument sincerely.

What you demonstrate is a lack of care for those around you, and a lack of care for what is actually true. You would rather "umm actually" then treat others with an ounce of respect. It's shameful and devoid of grace.

Yeah, it's been over a week since a Millennium Problem was solved. AI has hit a wall.

It was not solved. ~OpenAI~ Buckmaster and Alpöge found one (or a few) singularities in the forced version of the Navier-Stokes equations. Then magically 2 weeks later OpenAI found them too. Again, I am not saying this is not a great feat. I am just saying that everyone should be a bit more careful when making statements about RSI.

As the sibling comment points out, that is incorrect: they solved a smaller, simpler problem, and OAI solved the actual Millennium Problem. But even if they had solved the actual problem and OAI stole it by digging through chats, that hardly supports the "AI has stalled" thesis; Claude played the major role in creating their blowup to a different problem.

How, exactly, does "it was Claude that solved Navier Stokes, not ChatGPT!" get you to "AI has hit a wall and stalled"? That's, not to put too fine a point on it, incoherent, and is just noise thrown into the discussion to avoid grappling with the fact that AI continues to rapidly improve.

Buckmaster and Alpöge has found a forced finite-time singularity for the 3D incompressible Euler equations (and two other types) building on the work by Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez-Zoroa with the assistance of Anthropic and OpenAI models. Then OpenAI found a forced finite-time singularity for the Navier-Stokes equations.

TL;DR Buckmaster and Alpöge haven't solved Navier-Stokes blow up.

How information can get so distorted when it's trivial to fact check?

Then: "LLMs only cured cancer as a marketing stunt."

The dominant opinion on HN is, apparently, "It's been a full four days since OpenAI resolved Navier-Stokes, they must be hitting a wall."

Note that Caplan is focusing on medians and percentiles in his table, not on means.

I do kind of get the point that ensuring Boomers who have a lot of wealth in real estate can pass a paid off house to their heirs isn't a socially valuable goal (especially since Social Security is funded by working people, including many who don't own a house or aren't due to inherit one). Maybe instead SS benefit can be considered more like a loan with the house as collateral, payable on death or transfer.

So I work for 45+ years, paying SS tax for those 45+ years, and what that gets me is a loan when I retire with payback deferred until I die?

You'll have a hard time convincing anyone that they want to participate in that.

Reading through them, Luu's grades seem fair and accurate to me. Best defense of Kurzweil I can give is that if you give a grace period of a decade and scope them down substantially (to maybe a subset of well-off Americans in coastal cities), he looks much better, though still under 50%.

One of Kurzweil's close-but-no-cigar failed predictions was "neural nets and genetic algorithms," killed off by the conjunction and being a couple years too early (2009 for increasing interest, and 2019 for wide use).

Fair, sure. But it seems to be underselling how reasonable Kurzweil is.

We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people making predictions.

I don't think that situation reflects at all badly on Kurzweil except that he doesn't explicitly say he has a 15 year error bar. Which, yes, technically inaccurate, but it seems quite likely nobody would be talking about him if he spent that much time exploring the minor caveats.

And hitting him for the "and genetic algorithms" is verging on pedantry. Ok so genetic algorithms aren't a civilisation-level success that appears to be reshaping the fate of the species in the same way neural nets are. He was right that learning systems were going to be huge and he was off on a detail.

> We've got things like 2009 - "Computers can recognize their owner's face from a picture or video. No." And ok, sure, but that has happened by 2026 and we have more than 2000 years of recorded history of people making predictions.

If he was often right-but-early about things that weren't even in the hypothesis space for everyone else, that would be huge, even though his dated predictions would technically be wrong. But this example seems way less exciting. Facial recognition was not a new or impossible-seeming idea, so the remarkable thing about his prediction was the part where he said "by 2009". (And yeah, 15 years is a short time compared to 2000 years, but 'recorded history of people making predictions' is not really a serious reference class for his predictions. He's a guy in the computer age making predictions about what computers will do.)

But even those concessions have been a shift: at every point, he's been as bearish as possible on LLMs, often past credibility.

And if you take it as a given that AI will never be any better than ~~now~~ a year ago, and that anyone who disagrees is an idiot or a liar, then that pretty much demands that the entire AI economy must be as fraudulent as he imagines. Which, while it serves his purpose of serving up AI-skeptic invective slop well, doesn't actually model what's going on, which is speculative investments that have the potential to generate extraordinary returns.

Still a flaw--the SVG should account for how different client devices will render it! Existential doom averted, for now.

Let me know when AI patches this bug in the wheels on all the vehicles on the highway, AND my box fan when it's next to the light with the bad PWM dimming. Then we can resume our existential doom.