The circumstances under which they were able to get the synthesized DNA this way would not work in the general case [1]
>Multiple IGSC member companies detected the ordered sequence and determined the order to be legitimate as defined in the 2023 guidance. Specifically, the orders were placed on behalf of SecureBio, an organization known to IGSC member companies given the role played by SecureBio in the SecureDNA project, an effort to build a DNA synthesis screening system. In addition, the name on the orders was an individual who has co-published multiple times with Esvelt, an individual well known to IGSC companies to work in viral evolution and who is known to have access to laboratory facilities sufficient to work safely with the ordered material.
>In short, the system worked as designed: a legitimate individual ordered DNA sequence that, by itself, posed no risk of misuse, for delivery to a company associated with legitimate scientific contributions directly relevant to the sequence that was ordered.
This is going around due to rumors and baseless speculation on Twitter [1] right now that Anthropic has solved the Millennium problem related to Navier-Stokes [2]
This is a step beyond baseless predictions. Tao also had a "weird" "hypothetical" comment about LLMs solving complex proofs with impossible to human verify Lean.
There are theorems like that now, like de Grey's lower bound for the Hadwiger-Nelson (unit distance graph) problem. He used a SAT solver to check that a certain graph with 1581(?) vertices is not 4-colorable. There's no way for a human to check that.
Even simpler, imagine Anthropic announces Goldbach's conjecture is false and they have a billion digit counterexample. Anyone can download it (300MB compressed), but how do you check it?
Doron Zeilberger for decades has expected incomprehensible computer proofs to eventually take over mathematics.
Lol as far as I know that post was the origin of that claim and it's clearly just a guy predicting something that will happen in the future with no information about it.
Yeah, can't read anything on xitter due to the gigantic dickover they put over the content when you don't have an account. A screenshot would've been more helpful than an xitter link.
Why would they send it out for "expert review"? Every time, they have just made the AI generate a Lean proof. In fact, it seems like the most plausible direction to NS is computationally assisted detection of a blowup solution, which has fantastic automatic validation.
The surface of bugs in Lean is infinitely smaller than the human error involeved in a committee of peer reviewers. It's way more probable to say "it's proven because Lean says so" than "it's proven because a couple of reviewers said so".
Also, if a bug is found, all previosuly proven theorems can be reproven to immediately and conclusively find out if things went wrong somewhere
As the recent "proof" of the Collatz conjecture shows, that's not enough in an adversarial context. Human mathematicians don't submit proofs that take advantage of soundness bugs in Lean. AIs do.
Exactly, and the advantage is that checking that the problem is "formalized" here is essentially isolated to verifying that the final theorem statement matches the claim. If there are no 'sorry's and the program compiles, then it has been proven. That's the point of Lean.
Each word of your answer is carefully chosen. I'll add one sentence though: you let time do its job.
Of course there may be errors in lean, of course AI can take advantage of it, of course "carefully" is full of errors. So the only thing left is waiting to see if the result holds. And yes, it may take 30 years...
For a second I thought they were aiming the scary proof machine at us mortals doing PDE stuff. Fortunately the speculation is just that they happen to be aiming it at a nearby mathematician type problem. Phew.
None really. It just says if the NS equations are realistic and can really model real physics or there exist some solutions that make it blow up (infinite energy). But even if that would exist (a solution that blows up) it doesn't mean it doesn't work for 99,999999% of the stuff we're interested in.
The question is basically a pure math question about PDEs.
Maximally, a closed form solution would remove the need for Computational Fluid Dynamics. Any property could be derived from a (presumably expensive) analytic function.
Minimally. It could say that no such analytic function can ever exist. Which would be rather boring.
Turbulent fluids look awfully predictable with their spirals….
That would be surprising IMO. We have closed form solutions to Newton’s Laws plus gravity (albeit not very many of them), we have several closed form solutions to Einstein’s equation in GR, and we have a whole lot of closed form solutions to Maxwell’s equations. But we still use numerical methods to solve interesting problems in all of these fields.
Honestly, for practical engineering purposes not that much. The Navier-Stokes equations are an approximation for a mathematically ideal in-compressible fluid. Even ignoring compressibility, physical fluids in the real world are not continuous fields since they are composed of discrete molecules. However, for that small class of problems where an analytic solution can be found, then it means you can be confident in the answer (it won't blow up to infinity), and that there are no other alternate solutions to the same problem.
I have visual aphantasia but not aphantasia of any other senses, so I can assure you it's not a semantic misunderstanding. I play piano and can hear tunes in my head and use what I hear to play it out on the piano, like playing by ear but without actual sound. And I simply don't have this same ability with visualization.
However, I do visualize in my dreams, so from my own experience, I suspect that aphantasia is not a complete inability to visualize, but rather an inability to visualize intentionally. When I'm very sleep deprived or on psychedelics, my ability to conjure mental images changes, not necessarily to full visualization, but at higher levels than in normal life.
Are you thinking distillation goes from zero to complete model?
I believe it can be used in the RL / fine tuning sense, in which case 150,000 requests, assuming every one was detected, could move the needle in quality.
I agree it couldn’t replace all of pre and post training , but I don’t think that’s the claim. You do typical training, then distill really difficult cases.
Anthropic scraped the whole web, scanned every book, pirated every bit of media to feed in to their training. Distillers are doing essentially the same thing scraping all the knowledge from the LLM to create a training set for a new one.
They are crying about theft after committing the largest theft in human history.
You have to pay to read the rest of the article, which says:
>In August 2024, the town of Cedar Grove held a routine city council meeting. There, they discussed raises for their crossing guards and the purchase of a new truck for the local waterworks.
>The last item on the agenda was whether to accept a donation of new automatic license plate reader (ALPR) cameras for the town’s police department.
>“We’ve received a generous donation of new ALPR cameras … a very generous donation that the police department is receiving,” the town’s manager said. “These are very heavily used tools in the law enforcement toolkit, so it’s good to add more to our belt.”
>The total monetary value of the donation was $37,004. In the approved resolution, the town detailed its provenance: an LLC based out of Encinitas, California.
>It just so happens to be the same LLC that property records list as the owner of a $9.5 million mansion in the town.
>The address for the LLC is also used for a number of other businesses, investment ventures, and a charity. All of which have the exact same manager.
Nicotine itself may not be a carcinogen, but its metabolites are.
Nicotine itself has been demonstrated to be a tumor promoter by way of increasing tumor cell division in lung cancer and inhibiting apoptosis.
Quoting chemical highlight 25-1 from "Organic Chemistry" 6th edition by Vollhardt & Schore:
Nicotine appears to play a dual contributory role, because its metabolites are outright carcinogens and because the parent system itself, while not causing cancer, is a tumor promoter.
The metabolic pathway has as the initial step the N-nitrosation of the azacyclopentane (pyrrolidine) nitrogen. Oxidation and ring opening (compare Chemical Highlight 21-3) then take place, giving a mixture of two N-nitrosodialkanamines (N-nitrosamines), each of which is a
known powerful carcinogen.
Upon protonation of the oxygen in the nitroso group,
these substances become reactive alkylating agents, capable
of transferring methyl groups to nucleophilic sites in biological molecules such as DNA, as shown below. The diazohydroxide that remains decomposes through a diazonium ion to a carbocation, which may inflict additional molecular
damage (Section 21-10).
The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes, which are an illegal but widespread cottage (garage) industry where one summer, one of the thousands of manufacturer-enthusiasts made a forum post about the innovation of maybe using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. Experiments were performed, positive results were obtained, and products went out to distributors. The hazard to heavy users (perhaps for manufacturers with poor blending practices, we don't know) who showed up in the ER, was recognized within a month or two, and everybody immediately stopped using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. It took most of a year of panic for the last of that summer's merchandise to percolate through the supply chain.
The outbreak was initially hard for users to trace in particular because of how brands worked in that (again, moderately illegal) industry - a "brand" was basically a paper label/bag production line shipped in the clear from a printer, to hundreds of individual manufacturers, who negotiated their own distribution. Conclusions like "Mellow Mallow Blurple is a safe brand, I tested it" ended up being invalid.
There was a lot of fog of war at the time, and a lot of things were reported in the media that were inaccurate (or reported to doctors that were inaccurate, this being documentation of illegal drug use). This is my conclusion about what actually went on, aides by a number of articles in the tech, health, and especially cannabis media. Eg:
All you need to defend a Wikipedia claim staying in the article is a journalist writing something, and journalists with zero idea of what they were talking about outnumbered informed writers a thousand to one.
On 1 February 1871 Charles Darwin wrote about these publications to Joseph Hooker, and set out his own speculation that the original spark of life may have been in a "warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity &c present, that a protein compound was chemically formed". Darwin explained that "at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed." [1]
"There's strikingly little agricultural innovation in this corner of France" they mused... as the ground shook from tanks and shrapnel bursts.
A glass of sea water seems so peaceful... with its turbulent combat hellscape of voracious protists and viral shrapnel, where you're lucky to make it through a day without being eaten or lysed.
Dang, didn't realise that had been done. i did mean like you start with pawns and have to acquire the better pieces like rooks and bishops etc, or you can buy chess credits and spend them on two queens at once or sommething
>Multiple IGSC member companies detected the ordered sequence and determined the order to be legitimate as defined in the 2023 guidance. Specifically, the orders were placed on behalf of SecureBio, an organization known to IGSC member companies given the role played by SecureBio in the SecureDNA project, an effort to build a DNA synthesis screening system. In addition, the name on the orders was an individual who has co-published multiple times with Esvelt, an individual well known to IGSC companies to work in viral evolution and who is known to have access to laboratory facilities sufficient to work safely with the ordered material.
>In short, the system worked as designed: a legitimate individual ordered DNA sequence that, by itself, posed no risk of misuse, for delivery to a company associated with legitimate scientific contributions directly relevant to the sequence that was ordered.
[1] https://thebulletin.org/2024/06/why-a-misleading-red-team-st...
reply