> Please explain in your own words why you believe this is not the case.

It wasn’t 2023: Last post 11 months ago, last comment 8 months ago, which is a typical level of lurking

I thought they were projecting 10B and said a few months ago they have already grown from a 1B to 4B run rate

Here is an article that discusses why those numbers are misleading[1]. From a high level, "run rate" numbers are typically taking a monthly revenue number and multiplying it by 12 and that just isn't an accurate way to report revenue for reasons outlined in that article. When it comes to actual projections for annual revenue, they have said $2b is the most likely outcome for their 2025 annual revenue.

[1] - https://www.wheresyoured.at/howmuchmoney/

It doesn't matter if they end up in chapter 11... If it kneecaps all the other copyright lawsuits. I won't pretend to know the exact legal details. But I am (unfortunately) old enough that this isn't my first "giant corporation benefits from legally and ethically dubious copyright adjacent activities, gets sued, settles/wins." (Cough, google books)

Personally I believe in the ideal scenario (for the fed govt.) these firms will develop the tech. The fed will then turn around and want those law suits to win - effectively gutting the firms financially and putting the tech in the hands of the public sector.

You never know, its a game of interests and incentives - one thing for sure - does does the fed want the private sector to own and control a technology of this kind? Nope.

But what are the profits? 1.5B is a huge amount, no matter what, especially if you’re committing to destroying the datasets as well. That implies you basically used 1.5B for a few years of additional training data, a huge price.

Remarkably there’s really just one way to tie them together, you can always manipulate the knot to move between the different variants

> Remarkably there’s really just one way to tie them together

I would rather assume (but knot theorists shall correct me if I'm wrong) that there exist two ways of tying them together:

Cut knots K, L at some point; denote the loose ends by K1, K2, L1, L2.

- Option 1: connect K1 <-> L1, K2 <-> L2

- Option 2: connect K1 <-> L2, K2 <-> L1

Those are the same. To see that, just flip over L before performing the connect sum.

If they are the same, the mirrored double-chiral knot from the article would have identical properties even if one of the knots wasn’t mirrored.

I may agree if it was a 20% dilution round, but not if they are increasing from 3% to 7% dilution. Being so massively oversubscribed is a bullish sign, bad companies would be struggling to fill out their round.

your crystal ball needs calibration. this round alone was 14pct (183/13)... so the dillution was likely over 20pct.

13/183=0.071 so how can it be 20pct for this round??

can't see your point. this is already close to .1 so it can only go up. since it's series F it would be very likely to be at .2 as the parent said. but i would guess close to .5 or more by now. not counting all they had dole out to employees thanks to fb

It will typically be the same 40 GB model loaded in, but called with many different inputs simultaneously

Yes, you can `print axioms` to make sure no axioms were added, make sure it compiles with no warnings or errors. There’s also a SafeVerify utility that checks more thoroughly and catches some tricks that RL systems have found

It’s possible that in the Google deal you had to agree to sell back the shares (at a low value like par or original strike price) and the 1% refers to either those proceeds or the size of the Google employment package. If you didn’t agree then you would be left holding your shares of a company that is now gutted.

> It’s possible that in the Google deal you had to agree to sell back the shares

But how could Google require that?

> If you didn’t agree then you would be left holding your shares of a company that is now gutted.

Which is what is sounds like he wound up doing anyways? Which I don't even understand why.

Google can just refuse to hire you if you don't

I've literally never heard of a company demanding you give up shares in another company as a precondition of being hired, for an engineering role.

At the executive level they may not want you holding shares in a direct competitor because it presents a conflict of interest. But even then you generally have a period to divest.

Can nobody explain what the actual demand was here? What did Google offer vs. what did they demand, and why? And why would Google be buying your shares...? None of this makes any sense the way it's been presented.

How would they even know if you were still holding those shares in another company? This scenario is pure fantasy.

In this case P6 was unusually hard and P3 was unusually easy https://sugaku.net/content/imo-2025-problems/

Yikes. 30 years ago I would eat this stuff up and I was the lead dev on 3D engines.

Now I can't even make heads-or-tails of what P6 is even asking (＾▽＾)

Exactly. And presumably had a more sophisticated harness around the model, longer reasoning chains, best of N, self judging, etc

Have you found https://sugaku.net/ useful? It’s focused on math research