In this house we believe:
Hands should be out of fucking pockets
Twenty percent APR is OK for a new muscle car
Crayons are delicious
The J in JD stands for Jody
@stevehuntsman.bsky.social
American with bittersweet memories of living in a shining city on a hill. Mathematician. Give em hell Devils. Go Navy. русский военный корабль, иди на хуй. Currently clean on OPSEC. Entropy always wins.
In this house we believe:
Hands should be out of fucking pockets
Twenty percent APR is OK for a new muscle car
Crayons are delicious
The J in JD stands for Jody
Seb Gorka embodies modern conservative masculinity pretty well FWIW
03.11.2025 19:43 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0No it won’t change anything much. It only applies to survey and position papers
03.11.2025 18:42 — 👍 3 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0MIT Technology Review SUBSCRIBE And yet for all of LLMs' remarkable wordplay, Goertzel doesn't think that they do in fact contain sparks of AGI. "It's a little surprising to me that some people with a deep technical understanding of how these tools work under the hood still think that they could become human-level AGI," he says. "On the other hand, you can't prove it's not true." And there it is: You can't prove it's not true. "The idea that AGl is coming and that it's right around the corner and that it's inevitable has licensed a great many departures from reality," says the University of Edinburgh's Vallor. "But we really don't have any evidence for it."
www.technologyreview.com/2025/10/30/1...
Um…you can prove it’s not true, and more generally that AGI via learning is impossible. @irisvanrooij.bsky.social did.
Looks like ICE or CBP
01.11.2025 23:04 — 👍 6 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0A wild Fields medalist appears
01.11.2025 15:34 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Not gonna be brief
01.11.2025 01:27 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0I crossed an interesting threshold yesterday, which I think many other mathematicians have been crossing recently as well. In the middle of trying to prove a result, I identified a statement that looked true and that would, if true, be useful to me. 1/3
31.10.2025 19:25 — 👍 69 🔁 12 💬 3 📌 6Instead of trying to prove it, I asked GPT5 about it, and in about 20 seconds received a proof. The proof relied on a lemma that I had not heard of (the statement was a bit outside my main areas), so although I am confident I'd have got there in the end, 2/3
31.10.2025 19:25 — 👍 29 🔁 1 💬 2 📌 0the time it would have taken me would probably have been of order of magnitude an hour (an estimate that comes with quite wide error bars). So it looks as though we have entered the brief but enjoyable era where our research is greatly sped up by AI but AI still needs us. 3/3
31.10.2025 19:25 — 👍 48 🔁 2 💬 5 📌 21 -> 1*phi
31.10.2025 15:34 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Wait you’re telling me that the national labs have a purpose?
30.10.2025 22:18 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Cc @benjaminwittes.lawfaremedia.org
Imagining Snickers laced with Novichok if you showed up
That’s because it would be an abdication of responsibility
30.10.2025 22:01 — 👍 23 🔁 1 💬 0 📌 0Cc @irisvanrooij.bsky.social
30.10.2025 14:24 — 👍 2 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Salt iodized with I-131
30.10.2025 01:33 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Wonder what the PRNG the courts use. I bet it’s a hat with slips of paper
I know during a war game I was part of 25 years ago actually doing rejection sampling with calculator calls to rand was met with light bulb moments from some officers involved—they had specified probabilities but no methods
Drug prices are also gonna come down much more than 100 percent according to POTUS
27.10.2025 22:25 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Done differently *as Garland* OTOH…
27.10.2025 17:40 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0I’m under 50 and I knew a guy who knew Heisenberg
Time is weird
Time is right
No idea about public warning
Vs
25.10.2025 21:48 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Needs a comma after “third”
25.10.2025 21:14 — 👍 1 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0You could give him a copy of Candide
25.10.2025 21:10 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0Oh nvm WaPo said it was shitting on the carpet of diplos homes in Moscow
25.10.2025 15:48 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 0 📌 0That’s why they shit in staffers toilets in DC after breaking in
25.10.2025 15:43 — 👍 0 🔁 0 💬 1 📌 0