$20 Claude pro sub, running opus 5.5 high for almost 2 hours nonstop to use up a 5hr limit, and each 5hr limit is about 15% of weekly usage This is way more than what you get with $20 ChatGPT plus, and opus 5.5 is so much better than Sol 6 Anthropic wins so hard here

If Codex doesn’t fix its usage limits, users will move from GPT-6 Astra to Opus 5.5.

this is literally steve jobs coded

Today, we publish a Transformative AI Strategy for Europe. Over the last few months, we’ve rallied researchers and engaged with governments to develop a plan for protecting the prosperity, sovereignty, and security of Europeans in a time of rapid AI progress. transformative-ai.eu @MonikaSchnitzer and I are honored to have convened an all-star team of thinkers and researchers contributing ambitious near-term objectives to make Europe relevant again, including: — Creating a Member State Alliance for Supply Chain Security (@anton_d_leicht et al) — Making European institutions ready to act in a transformative AI world (Conor McGlynn et al) — Securing Europe's share of global AI compute, in a ‘European Way’ that benefits local communities (@philip_fox_ et al) — Ensuring resilience to AI crises (@ben_s_bucknall et al) — Making Europe the global leader in assurance technology — And more objectives around security of supply and leverage (@milorignell et al), economic strength (@FraukeStehr et al), and safety/security (@NoemiDreksler et al) Our all-star senior expert council of Europe’s best and brightest (and non-European friends) reviewed drafts, provided strategic advice, and made suggestions for how to make the strategy more useful: @Ph_Aghion @Christophkw @bakkermichiel @ischinger @vestager @aleks_madry @FuestClemens Marta Kwiatkowska @LeoVaradkar @antonosika @DAcemogluMIT @Yoshua_Bengio It’s never been more clear: AI is real, and Europe needs to act. We’ve had all the warning shots and wake-up calls we need. Now the question is ‘what must be done?’ This strategy is our answer. transformative-ai.eu

Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead. You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement. I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible. But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier. Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want. Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well. So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it. If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.

And as we speak the German notaries are doing a strong lobby so that EU Inc keeps notaries mandatory. We’ll soon see if Member States at the EU Council bend their knees for them against the democratic will of Europeans who want notarization optional / out as clearly shown by all studies, including the official EU Inc public consultation. Enough.

We’re sharing a solution to the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, one of the deepest problems at the frontier of mathematics. The proof was produced by a group of agents, using an OpenAI next-generation model significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra. The problem concerns whether the description of smooth three-dimensional fluid motion modeled by the Navier-Stokes equations can break down. It has remained unresolved for roughly 90 years.

Something's off with Codex usage. I was at 70% and it dropped straight to 0. We need a reset @thsottiaux

Still more absolute 🔥 from Terence Tao: “We have now seen that even the rumor of someone working on a problem can trigger a massive amount of AI-powered effort to flatten it before the original research project has time to reach its full potential. The incentives may now be pointing in the direction of no longer sharing any promising research directions with the broader community, which would reverse centuries of traditions of open science and do serious long-term damage to the future of the field”

go fuck yourself @sama claiming that you solved navier stokes because 10000 agents ran in circles for 88hours on a multimillion dollar gpu cluster to formalize in lean a blowup case under controlled external forcing is pure scientific vulgarity the clay mathematics institute millennium prize does not ask m whether you can artificially force a singularity in a fluid by injecting an ad hoc smooth external forcing term f(x,t) to twist the vortex until it breaks the real problem questions the fundamental stability and global smooth existence for 3dimensional incompressible euler & navier stokes equations under natural conservation laws and viscous dissipation alone using a mathematical loophole on forced equations to parade a century old victory is a major conceptual scam Altman technically & epistemologically what you present as an agi breakthrough is nothing more than bruteforce combinatorial autoformalization the ai did not understand fluid mechanics it simply navigated a continuous search space previously mapped out and constrained by the monumental work of human mathematicians like tristan buckmaster/ levent alpöge / diego córdoba or tarek elgindi coordinating 10000 agents to check the logical consistency of a 100 page proof via lean is a software engineering feat and computational parallelization triumph not an intrinsic scientific discovery it is the victory of the compute bulldozer over abstract human intuition repackaged for the public as a higher mathematical consciousness to this theoretical imposture you add a disgusting ethical and industrial cynicism taking advantage of private codex sessions and informal preprints from academic researchers to siphon their research leads and then trying to redact or erase the contribution of levent alpöge under the pretext that he works at rival anthropic is intellectual serfdom openai behaves like a feudal lord of silicon appropriating the cognitive subsistence of independent scholars threatening their careers behind closed doors if they protest and turning community academic labor into a privatized pressrelease this entire staged event serves a desperate financial agenda in a pre ipo panic facing the slowdown of scaling laws and growing investor skepticism over the profitability of foundational models openai needs to manufacture an artificial sputnik moment claiming to solve a millennium prize without immediately submitting the proof to traditional peer review means using the prestige of fundamental mathematics as cheap marketing fuel to inflate a delusional valuation!!! real science is not a clout chase on social media or a compute spike spent to rob the clay mathematics institute it is a quest for elegance physical truth and universal rigor to decode reality true artificial intelligence will not emerge from hostile corporate takeover of academic work hidden behind computational bruteforce but from architectures capable of generating new conceptual paradigms by masquerading constrained formalization as the collapse of physics greatest mysteries you did not solve navier stokes you only proved how far silicon valley will go to prostitute scientific integrity for capitalist spectacle

Really convinced that @christianmiele is wrong here! “... But at the same time, I feel like no generational company or exceptional founder ever failed because of notary meetings…” I agree that for a founder, spending 10 hours at a notary and paying €30k on a €10M round is not the biggest challenge. But the second- and third-order effects are much worse: (1) Every cap table change in a German GmbH has to be notarized, meaning every shareholder technically has to show up in-person at the notary. You can use a POA, but that also needs to be notarized and, for foreign investors, often apostilled. In some jurisdictions, that means going to an embassy. A US investor will do this exacatly once, and next time tell the German founder to set up a Delaware C-Corp. (2) More German and European founders are doing exactly that: setting up Delaware C-Corps or UK Ltds. Those are no longer German companies. They attract US investors and, if successful, are far more likely to IPO in the US. The founders may still be German, but they’re building another US unicorn, not a German one. I think our industry still massively underestimates the long-term damage this does to Germany and Europe.