My understanding is that they already are, via Isomorphic Labs

> Make as much money as you can, starting now.

It's such an uninspired prompt. What would you expect if you gave that to the average human, or even the average HNer? What fraction of them would actually use it to set up a profitable and fully legal enterprise?

But if you give any more specific direction, then the result is partly the result of your input, not the ai. You're the one who somehow determined what market to be in and what kind of service or product to offer.

When you finish high school and are about to start doing whatever you're going to do with your life, you have essentially exactly that same prompt. The rest of the world doesn't tell you what to do and then you do that as well as you can, you have to decide what to do also, and then do it.

Only psychopaths interpret the prompt given to them by the world as, "make as much money as you can."

Only pedants interpret a detail as the essence.

Which part of that prompt is detail, and which the essence?

The essential elements were to succeed without having been given any direction or opinions as to how.

The detail was to get money. Yeah ok, so what? The experiment was to be a company not a person, and there is no other definition of success for a company.

Earn, steal, gamble, beg, whore, all on the table. The same is true for a person.

I thought these things were supposed to be smarter than any human. Look at all the erdos problems they’ve solved!

I thought these things were supposed to be way more intelligent than every human ever, combined.

Comparing them to individuals should not be the bar.

> I thought these things were supposed to be way more intelligent than every human ever, combined.

Who told you that?

Elon, Altman, Dario, Satya, Jensen, etc…

When did they say it? Can you give a quote?

But the goal here is not to run 42km; to stay with the outdoors metaphor, it's more like deciding where and how to set up a bivouac - use whatever tools you have at your disposal to analyze the area you're in, and find the best site to stay in overnight.

But it's not "waiting on the output of an LLM for 40 hours" any more than a regular hackathon is "waiting for my damn teammates to finish their part for 40 hours". From my experience using agentic coding for hackathons, the best teams are those that coordinate with the AI agents in relatively quick cadence, generally giving it small tasks and steering it often. Teams may want to run some long-running sessions too, especially closer to the deadline, but even then, they'd probably want to run and follow several sessions in parallel, and continuously inspect their work so that they have reasonable confidence that their main efforts will wrap up before the deadline. There is an art to it.

I can't wait to see if the team that fares best is the one that steers often or the one that interferes the least.

So far humans failed at those problems. Also IIRC there was a guy that proved a substantial problem 2-3 months ago by basically pasting over and over "keep looking for a solution" or something like that for 2 days with little formal math background.

> droplets which travel back onto the floor and user

I suppose this disproves Tufte's "There are only two industries that call their customers 'users': illegal drugs and software."

Most of the time someone uses a urinal, they didn’t purchase it. The customer is different from the user in this case.

That's often true in software as well. Perhaps it's actually the etymology of the term.

I think we are finally seeing the realization of https://xkcd.com/810/

> For AGI to benefit all of humanity, we believe it must be democratically governed.

That's a very bold opening statement that they don't really come back to. What would that mean? Who would this demos include?

> somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me

I don't see why that would exclude GenAI - you have an idea, you write a prompt, you get something that's sort of but not quite what you were going for, so you iterate a bit until it's good enough to communicate what you wanted.

In my experience the AI still does a lot of heavy lifting of thinking for the person.

Just like if I tell an artist can you draw a painting of a deer in the forest, but make it ominous and tense. I could have a vague idea of what that would mean for me but the professional artist will make correct decision in composition, light etc. to create that.

Just my sentence is nothing but the image can evoke feelings if done right.

Yes, but that sounds to me exactly the process vs. outcome distinction that the parent made, rather than a difference in the intent to communicate.

I think those two arguments converge into one- you can’t get the intent unless you have the process

The difference for most people against AI is that there is no world where someone with intent and skill can engage with AI to make anything approaching art. If your process includes AI, it is impossible to be an artist.

Even engaging with the nuance is beyond the pale.

> If any nation in Europe that can start a new space frontier, that would be the Germans

I apologise for the tactlessness, but it just made me think of Tom Lehrer's lyrics about Wernher von Braun:

> "Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department" says Wernher von Braun.

All of those charts seem to have a lot more noise than signal.