polycryptoblog

Business Development @KomodoPlatform

[polycryptoblog @polycrypt0]

Yep

[𝓜𝓪𝓽𝓽 𝓕𝓾𝓻𝓲𝓮 @Matt_Furie]

🐸

[polycryptoblog @polycrypt0]

@tidemid How can I find this stuff out

[Milk Road AI @MilkRoadAI]

The greatest living mathematician just said something that reframes the entire AI debate (Save this).

Terence Tao, Fields Medal winner, UCLA professor, and by most measures the most accomplished pure mathematician alive speaking at an OpenAI Forum event in March 2026, and the observation he made is deceptively simple but profound in its implications.

"We lived in a world with cognitive friction until very recently, where every task required us to use our brain. So we didn't really think about it, we just thought this was the cost of doing something intellectual. But now we have AI and the other technologies that can bring these frictions down to zero."

To understand why this matters so much, you have to understand what most research time actually looks like.

Most research time is spent checking cases, chasing references, translating intuition into computation, testing a path, finding it false, and deciding whether the failure taught you anything useful.

As Tao puts it the lower cost of exploration that AI enables means he can now try crazier things and that makes all the difference.

The reason unconventional ideas in science are often abandoned is because the bookkeeping, coding, or literature search needed to even test them is too expensive for what is ultimately just a hunch.

This is where cognitive friction becomes scientific friction, and lowering it does not make taste, judgment, or proof disappear, it makes more weak signals cheap enough to inspect before they are abandoned.

AI is making hesitation less expensive, and that is often where discovery begins.

Tao now uses AI to search literature, write code, make plots and figures, run calculations, and test whether a possible approach is even worth chasing and he declared AI ready for primetime in March 2026 after confirming that in math and theoretical physics, it now saves more time than it wastes.

He had previously called early AI models mediocre but not entirely inept graduate students and then watched as they passed the threshold where the value of acceleration exceeded the cost of correction.

Years ago, Tao predicted that 2026-level AI, when used properly, will be a trustworthy co-author in mathematical research and by his own assessment this year, that prediction came in on schedule.

A 23-year-old used ChatGPT to solve Erdős Problem #1196 , a problem that had gone unsolved for 60 years in just over 80 minutes.

OpenAI's GPT-5.2 Pro resolved another open Erdős problem, with OpenAI President Greg Brockman posting about it in January 2026.

And OpenAI's Chief Research Officer Mark Chen articulated the institutional goal in terms that every investor should internalize, "We care less about winning a Nobel Prize or a Fields Medal, and more about enabling 100 mathematicians out there to do that for themselves."

If AI is genuinely collapsing the cost of scientific exploration not just in mathematics but in drug discovery, materials science, climate modeling, and theoretical physics then the companies building the compute infrastructure that makes that acceleration possible are not just selling chips and cloud capacity.

They are selling the raw material of compounding human discovery, and that is a demand curve with no visible ceiling

[Curiosity @CuriosityonX]

🚨: Research reveals kimchi latches onto plastics in the gut and removes them through waste

[Gait Analyst @gaitanalyst]

The Pope just allied with Anthropic. The arc of history is long but it bends towards Warhammer 40K.

[nicolas, 30 ans @nic_carter]

The “it’s not AGI because machine intelligence is jagged” is dumb cope.

It’s obviously AGI. If you had a friend who had a 130 IQ, could write production code flawlessly, could write academic papers of a high research caliber, pass any exam in any field with flying colors, create a sophisticate LBO model, draw technical diagrams perfectly, compose poetry in any language, and could find solutions to significant unsolved mathematical problems, you would call that person a world historical genius. Certainly, no single human has ever had intelligence that “general” before.

Now you think it’s “not AGI” because it sometimes slips up and makes mistakes - so does any human that you would consider “extraordinarily intelligent.”

The professor might forget a colleagues name that he has known for a decade. He is still considered intelligent. The math genius might be a little autistic and shy, unable to maintain polite conversation. Still intelligent. You might stare at the fridge for 30 seconds unable to find the butter, despite 5 million years of evolution perfecting your visual intelligence.

We give intelligent humans a pass when they have jagged intelligence. So why the double standard?

The qualities people list as “necessary for AGI” are important traits to have, but no longer pertain to intelligence. People will say things like “true AGI requires agency, long term goal setting, embodiment, self-direct action”.

But none of those things are intelligence. Those are “things that humans have that AI lacks”. Raw intelligence, AI has it in spades. That other stuff - important yet, but broader than and different from intelligence.

The unwillingness of people to acknowledge that AGI obviously exists and has existed for a while is due to a kind of anthropic chauvinism - a psychological need to believe that humans are superior in every respect, that we possess soft skills that no machine could replicate.

Yes humans are different from machines, but if we are limiting the discussion solely to general intelligence, AI has it already. That battle is over.

If you want to reframe the discussion to matters of human dignity and personhood, fine, but that’s not an AGI question. That’s something else. Just take the loss on AGI already. It’s over.

[polycryptoblog @polycrypt0]

@elonmusk Who is gonna start the polymarket bet if this will be elons next baby momma or not

[Beaver 🦁 @beaverd]

"you're not a scientist you can't vibe code an RNA folding engine with +- 0.5 angstrom accuracy noooooo"

I can and I did. I'm BETTER than a scientist because I am a RETARD

[polycryptoblog @polycrypt0]

@mikeoxbroad @internett_baby lol liked just for the ea-nasir copper reference

[truthache @truthache68]

💾😂 It’s actually wild that Gen Z has never experienced the pure serotonin of watching MS-DOS DEFRAG do its little block dance.

Your 4GB 386 is choking on life? Just run DEFRAG and stare at it like it’s 1993 Netflix.

Don’t fight the hypnosis… become one with the pixels.😵‍💫

[polycryptoblog @polycrypt0]

@mcuban this is ridiculous, you cant run anything with any sort of high parameter count locally unless you are rich. Raising taxes just gives money to people who have proven time and again they cant spend it wisely

[𝐑.𝐎.𝐊 👑 @r0ktech]

My average 3AM session with Claude..😄

[David Shapiro (L/0) @DaveShapi]

Reminder: you cannot talk about machine consciousness without first discussing fundamental ontological models of reality.

Most tech bros are not addressing which doxa they are operating by. Materialism? Monism? Dualism? Panpsychism? Something else?

Most are materialist by default, but there are many aspects of reality that are not best explained by materialism.

[james hawkins @james406]

Opus 4.7 is amazing

[atulit @atulit_gaur]

when claude gives you a timeline of 1-2 weeks, is it aware it's gonna generate all the code in the next 5 minutes?

[Little Bubby Child @lilbubbychild]

Yep.

[Sandro @pupposandro]

Reminder that this is the future of humanity if open source AI doesn’t win

[Autism Capital 🧩 @AutismCapital]

“He had no microplastics in his balls. She had a top 1% microbiome vagina. Can I make it any more obvious?”

[polycryptoblog @polycrypt0]

@Anina_CE Thanks this is very interesting

[polycryptoblog @polycrypt0]

@MilkRoadAI @MilkRoad Link to that MIT paper if you got it please