2
points
edanm
Joined 10,927 karma
Hello HN'ers!
Looking to get in touch? edanm@btlms.com.
I'm the Chief of Staff to the CTO at Irregular, a frontier AI Security company. We are working to prevent harm from AI models.
I was also previously a 2x entrepreneur of bootstrapped companies (professional services). I've been involved in many different fields in software.
Feel free to reach out about anything!
- edanmReally? I read both, though fairly far apart, and I never connected them before.
- Wow, that's a lot of reading! Cosmere is, what, 20-ish books at this point?
What was the tattoo if you don't mind sharing?
- What about letting customers actually try the products and figure out for themselves what it does and whether that's useful to them?
I don't understand this mindset that because someone stuck the label "AI" on it, consumers are suddenly unable to think for themselves. AI as a marketing label has been used for dozens of years, yet only now is it taking off like crazy. The word hasn't change - what it's actually capable of doing has.
- I didn't love the opening caricature either.
But, to be fair, that wasn't the kind of critique it was talking about. If your critique guns is moral, strategic, etc, then yes, you can do it without actually trying out guns. If your critique is that guns physically don't work, don't actually do the thing they are claimed to do, then some hands-on testing would quickly dispel that notion.
The article is talking about those kinds of critiques, ones of the "AI doesn't work" variety, not "AI is harmful".
- You're seriously insisting that the definition of novel in science only includes things that thousands of people have worked on for decades and haven't solved?
An example problem includes the "Erdos set" problems (see problem 124).
But also, LLMs have solved Olympia problems, see the results of IMO 2025. You can say that these are not interesting or challenging problems, but in the context of the original discussion, I don't think you can discount them as "novel". This is what the original comment said:
> Not so much amazing as bewildering that certain results are possible in spite of a lack of thinking etc. I find it highly counterintuitive that simply referencing established knowledge would ever get the correct answer to novel problems, absent any understanding of that knowledge.
I think in this context, it's clear that IMO problems are "novel" - they are applying knowledge in some way to solve something that isn't in-distribution. It is surprising that this is possible without "true understanding"; or, alternatively, LLMs do have understanding, whatever that means, which is also surprising.
- Wait, you're redefining novel to mean something else.
If I prove a new math theorem, it's novel - even though it's unlikely that thousands of humans have worked on that specific theorem for decades.
LLMs have proven novel math theorems and solved novel math problems. There are more than three examples already.
- I'm pretty sure parent poster meant they understand Python, the programming language, not that they have the understanding of the animal python.
- Right! It's well known that technical people never make mistakes.
- The plot is about the people trapped in the Cube trying to figure out their situation and get out.
The construction of the Cube is kind of a backstory, not the main part.
- I wouldn't call it the plot of the Cube, more like the setting/world-building.
- > a state conducting a Nazi-style genocide (according to the UN).
Can you provide a link showing that the UN is saying this? I kind of doubt the UN ever called it a "Nazi-style" genocide, and I don't think anyone serious is alleging anything of the kind (including serious people/groups who do call it a genocide - I don't think they'd characterize what's happening as a "Nazi-style" genocide, and nothing they say implies they think it.)
- But isn't this true of all technologies? I know plenty of people who are amazing Python developers. I've also seen people make a huge mess, turning a three-week project into a half-year mess because of their incredible lack of understanding of the tools they were using (Django, fittingly enough for this conversation).
That there's a learning curve, especially with a new technology, and that only the people at the forefront of using that technology are getting results with it - that's just a very common pattern. As the technology improves and material about it improves - it becomes more useful to everyone.
- There are clear differences, I don't disagree, I just think the difference isn't "rooted in real physics" vs "rooted in imaginary physics". The difference is more a matter of tone and general setting. Space? It's scifi. Medieval culture? Fantasy.
An author once wrote an intro to some short story. The story is part of a much larger futuristic scifi universe in which people have developed telepathy and other things through genetic means. And the specific short story was the first one he wanted to publish, and it was about a specific planet in that world, in which the whole story is basically a telepath coming into town and interacting with the population.
And the publisher returned the note that this wasn't scifi, it was fantasy. Because of course he did - stripped of the broader futuristic setting that the story takes place in, it's just a story of a wizard coming into town. Never mind that there are solid science fiction explanations for the "magic" - you don't get that in the short story.
- > Firing is when employer terminates someone for cause, i.e. employee did something wrong or didn't meet expectations.
AFAIK you are using the term "for cause" incorrectly. Firing "for cause" is usually more serious than simply firing for poor performance or similar. It's usually for something like breach of contract, for getting in legal trouble, for theft, wilful misconduct, etc. It also usually results in losing severance, options, etc.
Simple firing for poor performance is not firing "for cause".
- Some does, but often the source of interest in the story is making up a world in which some scientific law is different.
- Not really, no.
A common sf theme is "here is this change to the laws of physics, what would our universe then look like". Eg Arrival (and the story it's based on), tons of books by Egan, any book with FTL.
- (Haven't read Tau Zero.)
I agree, and sometimes the line is drawn between SF being "things that are theoretically possible" vs. Fantasy where things are impossible. But then you have things like Egan's Clockwork Trilogy, which is "what if the laws of physics actually worked a bit differently in this specific way" but which I assume anyone would consider SF. As opposed to Brandon Sanderson's books, which could be described in a similar way, but are usually categorized Fantasy.
At the end, it's mostly a marketing and feeling thing. As one of my favorite authors put it, the different between SF and Fantasy sometimes comes down to - are you putting a tree or a spaceship on the cover of your book?
- Practically speaking, they're lumped together for a few reasons:
1. Many people who like one genre also like the other.
2. Many authors write in both genres.
3. There's a lot of similarity in the genres, and lots of things that are hard to categorize. More true lately btw.
Just as an aside though, I personally was an avid almost-only-SF reader for the first 30-ish years of my life, but lately have been reading a lot of fantasy as well. I highly recommend trying, especially more modern fantasy - I feel like the lines are even blurrier between them today, and a lot of the best work today has shifted from SF to fantasy. (I still love SF and there's a lot of great SF as well, to be clear.)
- That's inaccurate. SF/Fantasy contains elements which are not possible under the laws of physics, not anything imaginary. Literary fiction is also imaginary, but taking place in "our world".
(The lines get blurrier when talking about imagined historical fiction, or even things like alternative fiction.)