It's +4°C (from the average global temperature). The glacier itself won't be at 4°C.

This isn't a rebuttal of any of your point but to give a precision, the City of Paris is absurdly small, most of the Paris Area is "suburbs". The US equivalent would be if NYC was only Manhattan, and places like Brooklyn were suburbs.

There are two different things:

- was item X in the training data

- did the inclusion of X in the training data lead to Y

I understand why the second is hard, but why is the first one hard?

Yep, the last part in my post was suggesting some ways we could determine if "item X was in the training data" (as well as some potential blockers for that from OpenAI's perspective.)

Well you could search for elements similar to the proof / problem in the training data, even if it's de-identified, right? OpenAI can probably do better than Ctrl-f "Navier Stokes".

There are probably thousands of serious academics taking a crack at millennium problems using AI every day. All those attempts are in the training data. And in fact the two researchers benefited from those attempts as well.

I don't understand the one country vs all of Europe - given a fixed population, being united in a single country surely makes everything a bit more efficient than being split in many small countries? India is much bigger than "all of Europe".

Aren't those "other problems" somewhat affected by climate change though?

I'd wager they're not binary (absent/present) issues but have many dimensions and a continuum of possible values and thus "climate change makes this problem worse or different" is something new. Random example: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-024-00583-8

I don't think GP was claiming they weren't.

What was the fossil fuel industry plan to massively shrink the fossil fuel industry exactly?

Where was it meant to grow up?

Maybe Wisteria Lane.

Where do you live? Most countries use labour force surveys, it's orthogonal to registration to unemployment agencies.

I looked it up and I have to correct myself.

So EU/Eurostat has surveys, Serbia does too (I’m from Serbia).

However most countries have also national way of determining the rate that works how I described, and they may differ quite a lot from Eurostat.

I guess EU introduced surveys with Eurostat so countries don’t juke the stats.

For example

- Denmark computes net unemployment straight from benefit and PES registers — administrative coverage is complete enough to do it without asking anyone. It still runs an LFS for the ILO figure. - Germany, Austria, Poland, Czechia, Spain publish monthly registered counts that dominate domestic debate, exactly the way NSZ figures circulate in Serbia. Each uses its own national definition, so none is comparable across borders. - Finland keeps a register series noticeably above its LFS count, similar in shape to the NSZ/ARS gap.

The ILO definition is comparable across countries

I don't understand the issue with saying that someone who is employed is ... employed.

If the claim is that a single number (the unemployment rate) does not capture all the high dimensional features of society & work, then well of course!

If the claim is that politicians & media focus too much on a single number to judge whether the labour market is doing ok, then sure? It's not a particularly contentious position though I don't see any way forward - even with a _single_ number to discuss, half this thread is making wrong claims about its methodology.

You're applying nuance to a discussion which so often does not lend itself to nuance. Successive governments love to focus on the unemployment figure as though that is the mark of a healthy jobs market. As you've pointed out, it's not. It's not even close. We should be speaking about it far less, and about other, more qualitative metrics far more. We don't, though, and the cynical reason is that the unemployment metric was designed to make things appear better than they are.

I guess it depends were you live, but in $HOMECOUNTRY, politicians also talk about wage levels (esp. their evolution vs inflation), etc.

The problem is that even as a single number, unemployment just isn't a very useful metric. Unemployed + underemployed is probably closer to what people care about, but it would probably be better as two separate numbers, and even then there is difficulty in defining both unemployed and underemployed, and accurately measuring them.

>If the claim is that politicians & media focus too much on a single number to judge whether the labour market is doing ok, then sure?

Yes, the gaslighting is the biggest problem. If we can't admit there's a problem (and politicians never want to admit the numbers are bad unless [other team] is in charge) then we can't begin to approach a real solution.

>It's not a particularly contentious position though

You'd be surprised. Even colloquially, that single number is how a lot of people try to justify that "job market is good, people are lazy". Because that person is not in a situation of searching for a modern job. This thread getting it right or wrong is irrelevant to that end. This isn't a board full of policy makers nor economists (at least, I don't think it is...)