Have a look at hyperbolic crochet as well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daina_Taimi%C5%86a

https://pi.math.cornell.edu/~dtaimina/crochet/hplane.htm

https://www.routledge.com/Crocheting-Adventures-with-Hyperbo...

I agree that there's an element of kayfabe here. But it may be a case of "necessary, though nothing is sufficient": by making these noises, the community can at least know they've done this thing to alert other model providers of the concern. Can you acquire assurance that every model distributor will abide? No. But can you at least know that you've done what you can?

I mean, on the bio side, I've talked with the players and they know the concerns are real but at the same time very, very responsible members of the community have also said "But maybe the benefit really does outweigh the risk!?"

> the community can at least know they've done this thing to alert other model providers of the concern.

"The community" you're describing is, essentially, surveillance capitalism. I don't want that at all.

Did you even read the original article? Surveillance is the least of the worries here.

Surveillance is required for closed weights models to have meaningfully different outcomes to open ones

For those not in the know on governance, there are international organizations formed around treaties for similar situations, the IAEA and OPCW come to mind. I'm not aware of similar constructs for bio, cyber, or AI.

On the plus side, for these newer threats, you've got more than 30 minutes before the end of civilization. On the down side, the energy levels for the launch events are much lower, so much harder to detect.

Where does this leave formal verification? Are we just shit-out-of-luck at this point? You can formally verify everything about an airplane's code, but if any of that is wrong, ChatGPT might decide that the best way to help you win the Nobel Prize is to take down the airplane your chief rival for the prize is currently in.

I think formal verification has never looked better.

The main reason formal verification has never really taken off is that it's difficult.

LLMs are significantly more familiar with Lean and Rocq and TLA+ than most software engineers.

I think the cost of trying to build systems that adopt formal verification may have just dropped low enough that companies will consider them when previously the ROI didn't look like it was there.

I have had a lot of sympathy for this statement, LLMs could lower the bar to use of formal methods. But thinking it over in the context of BDD-driven development I am no longer really that sure. Compare two scenarios: A) from a specification an AI agent develops a usual piece of code along with a BDD-style testsuite passed and B) same AI also delivers a formal test (Lean/Rocq..) and successfully executes and passes it.

Will human judgment really consider scenario B) more credible than A) ? By so much that it is worth the effort ?

The first reason formal verification has never taken off is that it's difficult. The second reason, that most people don't get to because of the first reason, is that formal verification is really brittle. It is only verified under the very specific setup of the problem. Close doesn't count in math.

The first reason prevents humans from engaging with them, the second reason is what will make it difficult even for LLMs. I mean, I'm glad we are trying, but I'm dubious they will be the panacea some people proclaim.

Close can count in math - fuzzy logic and probability are a thing.

But I think you have it backwards. Close doesn't count in IT security. "Almost secure" means unsecure. Security is the compelling argument for formal verification.

With clear, dark skies, you definitely can.

There are 200 Chinese industrial engineers, 8 Chinese bankers, and 1 Goldman Sachs disciple of Hank Paulson, reading this right now thinking of ways to chip away at sentence in this paper.

In case anyone is wondering why anyone should give a shit about this language, the relevance of MUMPS is that the largest market share holder of EHR systems is Epic, and their core database still runs on MUMPS.

You life, quite literally if you find yourself in a hospital, depends on MUMPS.

The second largest competitor, Cerner/Oracle Millenium, runs on MSFT SQL, and it's on life support. Last I heard, Oracle was looking to unload it.

Millennium has a streak of failed implementations lately, VA in the US, two here in Sweden. It is not just Millennium I believe health care providers are pretty bad at tech.

I don't know about the Sweden saga, but the VA saga is a deep rabbit hole. I helped build a dream team of companies at one point to fix part of this for another system at one point, and the integrator fell down under their own weight.

I thought I was going into informatics to write code. It's politics as far as the eye can see.

There are several other EHRs that use MUMPS too.

>on life support

Intentional?

Nah, AI should definitely be illustrated as robots. Because they're robots. Adding framing, bearings, servos is just an I/O issue.

Elon making outrageous projections? Noooo.....

My wife owns a business in a highly AI-resistant field (occupational therapy) in the most historically price-insensitive market (Silicon Valley). Her CAGR is 88% over the last 8 years. But we were talking about this economy problem today and with the SWE layoffs starting to roll through she said this morning: "It doesn't matter if AI can't replace us if no one can afford the service." That's crazy. Shit has changed. Not getting OT for your autistic kid is like not getting a wheel chair for a bilateral below-the-knee amputee. Whatever it takes.