See the video linked in one of my other replies in this thread - a bunch of your questions are answered there (not for this specific case, but for a bunch of similar ones).

Yeah… the AGI claims of LLM developers have run pretty hollow so far, but I can see how that could eventually lead in that direction. Wild.

True, see my reply to another reply in this thread - it looks like that’s definitely happening in some cases.

edit: oh, you already replied to it 😅️

This one? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJ8KThKAfbs

Edit: Huh, interesting. So there’s a few things going on:

1. In some cases, LLMs have pulled together pre-existing knowledge that had not been connected before (sometimes across languages).
2. Brute-forcing is sometimes part-of it (with searches informed by existing research)
3. There are languages like LEAN that allow formal proofs to be written out and then tested logically. I guess this means that LLMs now have access to testing the logical validity of statements, which is helping to make a bunch of these most recent breakthroughs.

That last one is particularly interesting, I think, because it expands LLM capability from being language-focused (with interfaces for agentic work) to something that can actually understand (in a way) the validity of logical statements. I think it doesn’t get it to an understanding of truths in general, because logic is always built from axioms, and it can’t know the validity of the axioms (except by assumption). If I’m understanding things correctly)

Right, but I would think that would be a lot easier and more efficient to do via scripting than via an LLM. I guess you could get the LLM to write the scripts though…

I’d be interested in understanding how Claude “helped” here, though AFAIK there are no details. I suspect it’s something like using the LLM to run some kind of optimised/filtered brute-force search and maybe getting a bit lucky, but maybe I’m way off base.

Right, sorry for the misread

https://archive.is/20260712175132/https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2026/07/12/storm-clouds-gather-over-americas-financial-supremacy

We’re not talking about 1 or 2 though, are we? We’re talking about hundreds of thousands (and also presumably most of the private development will continue).

Driving prices down is not the aim though. Housing people is.

What does it mean that you’re home is your retirement plan? You’ll sell it when you retire? And what, move somewhere cheaper? Doesn’t that do weird things to demographics?

Building social housing is great. I also want to empty residences taxed out of existence.

Yeah, smells dodgy.

There’s some analysis of the fake quote’s provenance over here: https://history.stackexchange.com/questions/7887/did-rothschild-say-this-famous-quote-if-yes-what-did-he-mean-by-it

American capitalists are a huge missing part of this picture

Looks like he’s… angling for a job a SpaceX? https://www.sergiofurnari.com/take-us-to-mars/

He’s definitely on to something

Those companies aren’t paying for quality software, they are paying for support and vendor lock-in.

All scientific supercomputers use Linux

This is not true. Supercomputers do, but in my research centre there are still lots of people using Windows and Mac. Linux usage is definitely way higher than the broader populace, but it’s not “all”.

Flip side of that: the government needs strong incentives to convince people to get blown up or shot at while on the job.

Gonna get down voted to shit for this, but that’s a crap article. It’s just one guys saying “I hate MAGA, and would happily watch them drown”. Since he never talks to them, the title is completely unsupported. A better article would have at least looked for some evidence, e.g. via some interviews or surveys or something.