Vicente Silveira retweeted
Jensen does NOT support Prop 40 or the wealth tax. I have discussed this with Jensen & the reporting is untrue. What he has said is that IF the tax were to pass - he would stay & pay it. He loves CA & will pay his taxes but he too is worried it could negatively impact CA. 🇺🇸
This quoted post is unavailable.
-You hang up
- No, you hang up
- You hang up first
A company sent an AI recruiter to interview him, so he sent his own AI agent instead
The two AIs discussed the job between themselves. No human was on the call
Then both of them glitched, and got stuck saying goodbye to each other. Endlessly
Job interviews in 2026: your agent talks to their agent, and neither knows how to hang up
A bird flying can be a beautiful thing to see, that said a modern jet can also fly beautifully while having more visible complexity
Stumbled on this message on my 13yr old son’s PC. Not sure his mom knows about why the increase in the electrical bill
Am I crazy or did Harvey and Legora introduced products with the same name, targeted to their customers’ clients on the same day ?? xitter.cf/harvey/status/21100656…
Introducing Intake: the agentic legal front door for in-house teams.
Every in-house legal team runs on requests from the business. A contract to look at, a supplier to approve, a policy question to answer. They arrive constantly, in threads and inboxes, often half-scoped, and the real legal work starts only after someone has read the request, chased the missing attachment and logged it somewhere.
Intake changes that process. It turns ad-hoc requests into tracked work in Legora, routes the execution to the Legora Agent, and returns it to the requester, with a lawyer accountable the whole way through.
Available now for in-house teams. Learn more: legora.com/product/intake
This is the future of research
Update: we hit a hard wall again and progressed only 0.7% since last night.
Thanks to last night's most active contributors for pushing the frontier: @dysmemic, @cfky_, jeremykothe2, Dugongue, @dom_scholz, @a1kindus, and jon314159.
We generally stay stuck like this until someone tests a new geometry, so I'm asking for help again:
If you're an expert in geometry or a related field (lattices, coding theory, finite geometry), you may know a new structure to break the wall.
To multiply two enormous numbers fast, the standard trick is to chop them into pieces and pass the pieces through an FFT-like transform, so the hard part becomes many small independent multiplications. Our trick makes one step inside that transform cheaper.
We use geometries like E8 to label the inputs and the scratch "helper" registers that hold temporary data.
We just need rough suggestions, and we can test them ourselves quickly. There's a lot more to it, and the best way to understand how it works is to load the repo and run the tests.
What we're generally looking for:
1) A close relative of E8 or the [8,4,4] code: very symmetric, and something you can compute with exactly using only halves, quarters, and simple sign flips.
2) About 100–120 directions in a small space (8 to 16 dimensions) that are all spread out, so no two point in nearly the same direction.
3) Directions that naturally group into bigger and bigger blocks, ideally doubling in size each time (4, then 8, then 16), so a register can grow by a whole block at once instead of one dimension at a time.
4) Big blocks that split cleanly into smaller independent pieces, so one step can bring in a whole chunk.
Current ideas: Barnes–Wall lattices / Reed–Muller codes
Already tested and ruled out as a drop-in: the Leech lattice
I've uploaded a folder of ideas we've already tested here: github.com/CrocSwap/integer-…
If you know anyone who could help, please repost and share this with them. 🙏
Let's test the limits of decentralized auto-research and use the reach of X to push the frontier :)
Incredible: Douglas Adams predicted the mathematicians vs AI conflict.
Anyone who read Douglas Adams "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxaxy" must be in ave of his ability to write so humorously and precisely about the future.
Here he is on "Deep Thought" the computer in the book that is being tasked to find the ansver to Life, the Universe, and Everything. Reminds me of many AI risk researchers:
"...Vroomfondel shouted, ”We don’t demand solid facts! What we demand is a total absence of solid facts.
I demand that I may or may not be Vroomfondel!”
”But who the devil are you?” exclaimed an outraged Fook. ”We,” said Majikthise, ”are Philosophers.”
”Though we may not be,” said Vroomfondel waving a warning finger at the programmers. ”Yes we are,” insisted Majikthise.
”We are quite definitely here as rep- resentatives of the Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!”
”What’s the problem?” said Lunkwill.
”I’ll tell you what the problem is mate,” said Majikthise, ”demarcation, that’s the problem!”
”We demand,” yelled Vroomfondel, ”that demarcation may or may not be the problem!”
”You just let the machines get on with the adding up,” warned Majikthise, ”and we’ll take care of the eternal verities thank you very much.
You want to check your legal position you do mate. Under law the Quest for Ultimate Truth is quite clearly the inalienable prerogative of your working thinkers.
Any bloody machine goes and actually finds it and we’re straight out of a job aren’t we? I mean what’s the use of our sitting up half the night arguing that there may or may not be a God if this machine only goes and gives us his bleeding phone number the next morning?”
”That’s right!” shouted Vroomfondel, ”we demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!”
Suddenly a stentorian voice boomed across the room.
”Might I make an observation at this point?” inquired Deep Thought.
”We’ll go on strike!” yelled Vroomfondel. ”That’s right!” agreed Majikthise. ”You’ll have a national Philosopher’s strike on your hands!”
Not every day I see someone claim 2^104 improvement to anything
We are publishing an update to OpenAI Problem #109 (integer multiplication) with a substantial further tightening:
T(n) = O(n (log n)^(1 − κ)),
With κ = 2⁻⁷⁸ (tightened from κ = 2⁻¹⁸²)
Approximately 570 million fold improvement over our previous result and a 2¹⁰⁴ fold improvement over original OAI result.
Our earlier ceiling applied to a cubic bottleneck in the network. The new witness scales quadratically; we haven't established a new ceiling.
The key was using nonadjacent axis swaps to route around the cubic bottleneck. The original manuscript already supported nonadjacent axis swaps. Using them directly reduces layout routing from O(d²) to O(d) swaps.
Vicente Silveira retweeted
Excited to be at OpenAI Dev day, exciting updates so far. Really excited about Pro 500 plan with ultra fast Astra.






















