While the result is impressive, this blog post is extremely disappointing.
- It does not show an example of the new best solution, nor explain why they couldn't show an example (e.g. if the proof was not constructive)
- It does not even explain the previous best solution. The diagram of the rescaled unit grid doesn't indicate what the "points" are beyond the normal non-scaled unit grid. I have no idea what to take away from it.
- It's description of the new proof just cites some terms of art with no effort made to actually explain the result.
If this post were not on the OpenAI blog, I would assume it was slop. I understand advanced pure mathematics is complicated, but it is entirely possible to explain complicated topics to non-experts.
The Internet in 1999 was not good at all. Browsers barely worked, computers crashed constantly, the ability to actually search for useful things was limited, and many things we take for granted as being online (news, people, documentation) were not.
The mid-to-late 2000s are perhaps closer to what the author is looking for.
Except for the part where it's constantly having quality and reliability issues, even independent of the server-side infrastructure (OOMs on long running tasks, etc).
For someone to come in and buy Bluesky and then hold everyone’s data hostage, then Bluesky would actually have to have enough value that someone would want to buy it.
The 90-day disclosure window is an arbitrary courtesy, not a binding contract about the behavior of either party. They probably had other things to do.
That is not true, you can run DLP on an endpoint directly and inside a browser directly (e.g. via an extension or direct integration hooks).
You can also try to stop the situation where the CC numbers are in the clear anywhere in the first place, so that you can't copy/paste them around. What happens if someone writes the CC number down on a piece of paper?
- It does not show an example of the new best solution, nor explain why they couldn't show an example (e.g. if the proof was not constructive)
- It does not even explain the previous best solution. The diagram of the rescaled unit grid doesn't indicate what the "points" are beyond the normal non-scaled unit grid. I have no idea what to take away from it.
- It's description of the new proof just cites some terms of art with no effort made to actually explain the result.
If this post were not on the OpenAI blog, I would assume it was slop. I understand advanced pure mathematics is complicated, but it is entirely possible to explain complicated topics to non-experts.