upvote
>AI didnt break through stavier-nokes until a human set the initial direction. That's not going to change.

That's not what happened. There was no 'initial direction' to set because OpenAI didn't know whatever tristan et al were working on or what direction they took. They heard rumors thta navier stokes was solved and set their best model on it.

reply
>AI didnt break through stavier-nokes until a human set the initial direction. That's not going to change.

Why isn't this going to change?

Right now it's easy to see why don't set AI lose on every problem, someone human or AI has to delegate rare resources between competing interests. But if we look at general compute it was no different in the past. In 1980 you had to ask for permission to get CPU compute time. In 2026 you run it on your own computer, or maybe pay for it on Amazon. The constraints are much different.

If we keep pumping out chips and increasing efficieny someone will just make the LLM into an agentic loop (build the harness in) and set it lose on problems.

reply
Model collapse

If you solve it then yes humans are toast mental usefulness wise

reply
Models have been trained on synthetic inputs for over a year now. Collapse only happens in very specific circumstances, it's not a limit in practice.
reply
Model collapse as an insurmountable wall is a fiction dreamed up by Luddites, actual frontier labs understand the failure mode and avoid it.
reply
It’s like asking why we don’t just run all the programs instead of making users decide what to run. There’s an infinite number of problems that could be solved, and the question of which ones are important to solve is a question about us and what we want.
reply
(minor nitpick, but it’s “Navier–Stokes”)
reply
I'm pretty sure the interism was spoonentional.
reply