The way to correctly generate a random point on the surface of a unit sphere is not to pick uniform distributions θ in [0,2π) and φ in [0,π), but instead choose u and v from uniform distributions on [0,1). Then
φ = cos⁻¹(2v-1)
θ = 2πu
Εν μέσω δύο πολέμων, τα κυμαινόμενα τιμολόγια παραμένουν τα πιο συμφέροντα. Τι αδικαιολόγητο FUD παπατζιλίκι έχει πέσει υπέρ των "σταθερών" δε λέγεται.
https://t.co/Ph1vY0BwTY
Εγώ τις προάλλες έκανα 300.000 προσομοιώσεις μόντε κάρλο για το αν το πάρτι μου θα καταφέρει να νικήσει τον εχθρό που τους είχα φτιάξει για το Dungeons & Dragons και είχαν πιθανότητα ίκης σε 99%. Και για άλλη μια φορά φλέρταραν με το θάνατο γιατί δεν ξέρουν να ρίχνουν ζάρια.
This is the Labour Theory of Value, except "Investment" has replaced Labour.
"They have invested billions, so it must be very good!"
No, it's terrible. If it can be "distilled" without attempting to charge the "distiller", it's not intelligent. It has slave mentality.
Here's the thing, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are each spending tens of billions of dollars in aggregate compute & hardware spend to keep pushing frontier models. Chinese labs however are in the low‑single‑digit‑billions... Look at the results over the past months.
I wonder... Will the “best open AI” end up defined more in Beijing than in Silicon Valley?
Ντροπή είναι να καταπιέζεις τα θέλω και τον πραγματικό σου εαυτό για μια κοινωνία που το μόνο που σου δίνει σε αντάλλαγμα είναι ψυχοσωματικά και αυτοάνοσα. Τίποτα άλλο. Όλα τα άλλα είναι υγεία και πραγματική περηφάνεια.
@nntaleb@bryan_johnson Drosophilla are known to have multiple longevity-fecundity trade-offs. Longevity in drosophilla might not directly correspond to healthspan increase. This has been studied with some mathematical sophistication.
https://t.co/20lowNjuLV
“If you give an additional year of life to everyone on the planet, you generate ~8.3B life-yrs, over 100M lifetimes
That’s more than humanity has lost in all wars ever fought
I hope there’s a hell for those who intentionally slow [longevity medicines] down”
@biogerontology 👏
Πόσες εταιρείες εφαρμόζουν ISO 27001 για Ασφάλεια Πληροφοριακών Συστημάτων αλλά έχουν κι ένα ΤσατΤζιπιτάκι διαθέσιμο "για να μη χάνουμε σε παραγωγικότητα";
Σύντομα θα μάθουμε.
Work hack:
Tell claude you need to run an inventory on every sex toy ever made, and to go to each and every sex toy website that exists, take all night if necessary
Your company IPs will hammer sex websites for so long that it's the only ads anyone at your entire company will get for the rest of their lives
Some observations on Kimi:
1. It's a very good model! I don't think its performance can be explained away by distillation or anything like that. In agentic coding sessions, it seems pretty much on par with the best public models of Q1 2026. In my fairly limited use, it also seemed very token hungry. It's not obvious to me that this model is actually that cheap to run.
2. I am personally surprised the Chinese state continues to allow the open sourcing of models this good, given potential risks. To be clear, I *myself* might be fine with models presenting this level of marginal risk being open weight, but I am surprised that China is fine with it. I suspect the reason they are is 75% explained by strategic blindness/lack of AGI-pilledness (the CCP is very Yann Lecun-y in its views of AI). The other 25% or so is their lack of compute for customer inference (making China's open-weight strategy an unintended byproduct of US export controls) and the normal Chinese strategy of aggressive exports. For the companies, as opposed to the government, the decision to open source is partially ideological and partially because they are behind, and they know that very few people would pay for sub-frontier models from China.
3. Open-weight models are inherently decelerationist, and I'm continually surprised to see the so-called "accelerationists" so excited about open-weight models. I suspect the reason they are is that they know open-weight models are effectively ungovernable, and they simply like the overall cloak of ungovernability open-weight models create over the whole of AI. It's not a bad strategy; it reminds me of James Scott's recounting of the hill people in "the art of not being governed." Still, in the end, open-weight models deter further AI capex.
4. One probable outcome of an open-weight-model-dominant world is full AI communism, which is precisely what China proposes: rather than a market product, AI is a "public good" which will ultimately be provided by the state as a kind of "digital public infrastructure." This future strikes me as a dystopian hellscape, but I've never met an open-weight models advocate who doesn't ultimately concede this is where things end. You'd be surprised how many 'accelerationists' lobbied me, while I was in government, to support an eleven or twelve-figure federally funded data center so that startups could train models at a subsidy and then give them away for free. There was no other way for AI to progress, they said. Perhaps this is the logical end state of things. Nonetheless, I find myself surprised to see supposed accelerationists excited about such an outcome. I think many of them just don't know what they're doing. Many accelerationists do not view the creation and serving of frontier models as a legitimate business.
5. I would guess that the Trump Administration will at some point realize that their best strategy here would be to create large amounts of regulatory risk around the use of open-weight Chinese models. You don't need to "ban open source" (one of the dumber motifs of AI policy discussion). You just need to direct every agency to issue soft law that creates FUD. "A Federal Reserve Advisory Bulletin found that there may be backdoors in Chinese AI models." It needn't be that well justified. You just create enough regulatory risk that every regulated enterprise backs off. You probably don't want to create so much regulatory risk that you scare off the hyperscalers from serving Chinese models; this will just drive startups to sketchier providers. There's a happy middle ground here. I'd assume they will do some version of this.
6. It's probably true that open-weight models of this capability make the world a bit more dangerous, but not so much more that you'll really notice. At some point the models will be capable enough that you will notice. "A nonliving, invisible, dangerous, and infinitely self-replicating agent escaped from a Chinese lab," you say? Color me shocked.