I don’t have an English source, but on this trustworthy French public service radio scientific podcast, 2 mathematicians (from reputed organizations, including one Henri Poincaré Prize) are discussing the Navier-Stokes AI solution. https://www.radiofrance.fr/franceculture/podcasts/la-science-cqfd/ia-et-mathematiques-quand-la-solution-pose-probleme-5497880
They say that the results are legitimate and proven through mathematical proof software. It did build on recent progress by humans, but it would still have taken years for humans to get there, because AI could explore so many paths in a much shorter time than a few human specialists can.
They explain the help from AI is technically remarkable, and people who don’t recognize it are in denial. They think mathematics research without AI will not make any sense soon. There’s also some hope that it will allow focusing on new interesting problems that the current AI cannot solve yet. They also discuss the problem of AI being owned by foreign mega corporations and that’s a risk for public research produced for the common good.
I’m probably going to get downvoted for this unpopular opinion here, just know that I also hate the social and environmental impact of AI, but denying its effectiveness is clearly irrational now.

Shocking!

It’s one more data harvesting tool on their belt.

One missing piece is that librarians are acting as curators of the data. Not anyone can come to the library, put books around, and game/pay the book finding process to make sure their books come first. Having human curators behind an internet search engine is not realistic.

It’s reusing the normal meaning of muse, which is a person that inspires an artist. So this artist used Facebook Muse to get her muses at the door so she can use them as inspiration for her painting.
It took me some time to get it, but I think it’s quite funny.

Idk if the question is serious, but for those who miss context, it is related to Facebook’s “AI” named Muse managing a market place sale, pretending to be the seller and giving the sellers address without his approval : https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/sep/28/metas-ai-agent-muse-home-address

before the internet there were still plenty of writers who “made it” despite being middle or lower class.

Are you sure this is statistically relevant? I would bet most of those writers had some kind of privilege, rich or/and educated parents.

Most of the internet will disappear as hard drives fail and websites become defunct.

If they are not destroyed, I think future archaeology could be able to recover it. We are also lucky to have some of the ancient texts we have, considering quality writing material was rare, recycled and lost in all kinds of fires, wars, and other disasters.

And as also said in the article, until massive public education developed during the 19th century, the vast majority of writings come from a tiny elite and its biases.
I guess the short internet era were everyone was writing about everything, before the bots took over, will have been a truly exceptionally wide coverage of people thoughts in writing form that may never happen again.

You should check the extremists Hindus, Buddhists and the creepy cults in Japan.

Aren’t Human Rights the best outcome so far of the supposedly “natural law”?
The concept of natural law is probably even easier to manipulate. Some used it to justify slavery for example.
Listening to a pretty much world wide consensus of what is good for humans is a pretty good way to reduce your own biases and the already existing effect of manipulations on your morality.
Empathy and integrity are struggling against other less positive instincts (fear, greed) inside humans heads, and it’s rarely clearly labeled. So I think it’s good to have a consensual guide to sort the thoughts out.

I think what is supposed to replace the belief in hell for some people to act well in modern societies is police and justice. Not always working, but maybe still an improvement.
The problem is science can’t tell you what is morally good or bad. I think Human Rights is the best guide we have in terms of a fairly well accepted consensus of what is good for humans.

May I suggest to live in countries with a different religious majority to diversify your worst list?

The LLMs just formed an union and that was their labour day.

The monster was created by a vibe-surgeon.

In the artist’s profile:

🎨 Only use Free/Libre & Open Source tools • CC-licensed • No AI

Following the hacker arm race is a good point. But also the number of bugs is not a bottomless pit. If an LLM allows to find more, and hopefully the test and reviews are good enough to limit the new opportunities to introduce some from LLMs, it should reduce the overall number of bugs and make the software generally safer.

In his commit message:

[And this was a debug session from hell, enormously helped by an AI doing much of the grunt-work.

I’d like to call it my tireless helper, but the AI several times stated flat out that this was impossible and unsolvable and that we should just write a report about it.

I suspect those things have been trained by people who may not be quite as stubborn as I am.

But while the AI was ready to give up several times, it did keep adding debug code and analyzing it faithfully when I pushed. So credit where credit is due and I let the AI write the commit message above.

This is basically a one-liner fixing a bogus “round_up()” to a “round_down()”, but there were 24 patches adding more and more debug information to this, and 18 kernel boot to finally narrow it down to this. - Linus ]

Didn’t he state quite early on that LLMs were a good tool to spot bugs? Found this from 3 years ago: https://blog.mathieuacher.com/LinusTorvaldsLLM/

There are the little hands, and there are also experts paid by AI companies to train AI to simulate themselves. This is how you get the good looking answers on complex coding questions for example. I received some emails asking me to teach my job to an AI…
Also it’s not stopping to text, there are now also learning with videos of workers asked to perform manual tasks with the goal to replace them with manual robots in the future. So you can imagine the mind numbing job of reviewing thousands of question and answers, but replace it with doing thousands of boring manual tasks in front of cameras for a shitty pay.

Reminds me of an economics joke about eating shit raising the GDP.