Same. I went to a music festival and their website was hard to use, and the schedule was difficult to understand. And the area had bad connectivity. A few prompts and I was able to build a much better offline site.
That's an example of AI growing the sector that can lead to more jobs. Because suddenly a lot of tasks that weren't economically viable are now going to be in demand. Custom software for small businesses, platform specific optimized code instead of cross platform software, etc...
It's a good nitpick. A hypothetical 1000Hz display will still look smooth to the human eye at 60/120Hz. A 1Hz display will never look smooth.
But it's more about honoring the user's preference. I personally would rather 60Hz, then 120Hz heating up my room unnecessarily. If someone has a display set to 1000Hz for whatever reason, then you should try your best to honor that.
A user's hardware represents the worst case scenario they want to be able to handle, not their preferred nominal settings. Most people aren't changing their screen refresh rate when they switch between playing a game and reading wikipedia.
Approximate calculation is putting the cost at ~$5 per million tokens (assuming 42W sustained, 20¢/kWh), and that's excluding hardware and other costs.
I got to the same conclusion another way. There's ~2.6million seconds a month and this is getting 0.5tok/s which is 1.3million tokens a month. Give some room for overhead and a reasonable rule of thumb;
The cost to run the machine per month is the cost per million tokens.
Shit, beats the hell out of GitHub CoPilot charging $.01 per "credit." For Opus that's one credit for 400 tokens genned, so $5 converts to 200k tokens down, plus the cost of whatever context you sent up.
It's not a cost if you self-consume your energy, even if you get paid for what you inject. You are just amortizing differently the cost of the PV installation. But what you get for the energy you sell is not real money, it's just money you MIGHT consume as energy in other periods.
I think this is the contentious point in this thread: in the UK you can get actual cash for exporting energy to the grid, at similar rates to import, with no strings attached.
Is the model you're describing (usage credits) in the European market somewhere ?
You don't know if you are going to pay it anyway and depending on the retribution model you can loose them if you don't use them in time.
Cost is not the right mental model here, you can and should count them in the amortization plan of your installation (total cost / (projected generated kWh * lifetime)), so every kWh not used and injected is paying for it, while the kWh consumed should be discounted at the price you would pay for them at that specific moment.
> unless you genuinely keep racking up non-redeemable energy bill credits for feed-in.
I know many many cases of people with overdimensioned PV installations that at some point want to leave their current energy company because prices are changing and have hundreds or more of euros in the "virtual battery".
I have no idea what you're trying to say. With PV, if you consume one additional kWh your bank balance will be 20c lower than it would otherwise have been. You can argue semantics about whether that is a "cost" all you want, but practically the end result is the same and any financial decisions about whether to consume that kWh should have an identical result to what you'd decide if you bought the energy in for the same price.
they're saying you might not use the extra energy if your PV runs year round. If you continuously had a year round surplus, you wouldn't have a need to buy any energy, so the credits would be monopoly money.
The grid doesn't give you money in these locations.
They give you credits for future consumption. You can only spend this on energy. If you always have a surplus, you will just rack up large amounts of credits.
In Spain you cannit withdraw it, only spend it with the same provider. If you migrate it, you lose it.
And it makes sense because it's for self-consumption, you are not an energy micro-provider.
What makes you think the unaccelerated path would use the accelerated iGPU path? Typically hardware decoding is disabled because of driver/reliability issues and thus would switch to software decoding to sidestep these concerns.
It's not created out of no where. It's traders saying that the stock is over priced and putting their money where their mouth is and taking on a big risk if they're wrong. They're extracting this money from folks that are putting upwards pressure on the stock saying it should be worth more. They're helping price the stock more efficiency and reducing index trader's expose to an overpriced stock e.g. retirement funds.
I'm curious how many unsolved problems are tried against frontier models when they come out. Are we trying every problems against every release? What is the solve success rate? Is there a sub-community within Mathematics that is coordinating this effort? How much untapped opportunity is there here?
Claude estimates that tool use / input tokens might add 10-15% on top of that depending on exactly how the model went about the task.
Edit: better tok/s estimate buckets based on GPT 5.5 actual speeds since I couldn't find real benchmarks on 5.6 published anywhere. Also account for Sol Fast pricing.
> apparently that is just Sol being Sol on fast mode, not 750 tps. :x O.o
> This is real and it is not 750 TPS. Anyone with 5.6 Sol Ultra on fast mode can reproduce this! It’s all GUI interactions with CUA. No MCP or bpy needed.
I find it kind of interesting the whole output wasn't released. A common criticism of mathematical writing is results are "pulled out of a hat"; you only write up a polished, final proof, but hide everything that went into developing it. It's kind of ironic the practice is even carried on when an LLM writes the proof.
pretty sure already millions of dollars (in inference costs) were already thrown at the Riehmann hypothesis
as the models get stronger, larger amounts will be thrown at it
imagine paying "just $1 bil" to go down in history as the company who's model solved the hardest/most famous open problem in mathematics. imagine the worldwide press headlines.
as they say, the Riehmann Hypothesis is the hardest way to earn a million dollar
I mean if there's something I'd bet against being solved by LLMs in my lifetime it's that one. We truly do not have line of sight into what a proof would even look like.
Why would you bet against it being solved by LLMs? Isn't this very post proof that LLMs in an agentic harness are capable of doing real math? If you just keep cranking away at the tokens I don't see a principled argument against that leading to more solutions to unsolved math, even the hardest problems.
There are different classes of mathematical problems.
The one in the post definitely shows the advantages that LLMs have compared to humans for some problems but it's in an entirely different class than the Riemann Hypothesis.
Riemann is one of the most studied math problems of all times and all of humanity has basically collectively failed to make progress. The idea that there's some technique that just hasn't been tried yet (like in the post) is very very unlikely.
The general consensus is that we'll need an entirely new branch of mathematics to solve Riemann - our current tools aren't just inadequate; they're of the wrong class entirely.
I suspect inventing new branches of math will remain beyond LLMs for the remainder of my life.
“ I suspect inventing new branches of math will remain beyond LLMs for the remainder of my life”
Well every branch of mathematics thus far has been invented by a human or a human using a computer, and humans will use this type of computer to solve math problems (or at least try), so I’d say this is a really poor probabilistic bet.
> As the person holding the money, it's my job to look at what is effective and what the active ingredients are in any given product.
But I don't have time to do that. I would rather have a retailer do that curation for me and provide me with effective high value products, and stand behind returns when they miss the mark. Then as a customer I can reward them for that value added work.
That's why Costco is great most of the time. Although they sometimes miss the mark with certain products they stock.
Additionally, if I'm buying cold medicine there's a really good chance I have a cold, and my ability and inclination to carefully analyze the ingredient list on a box of medicine smear-printed in 3pt sans will likely be diminished.
I don't recognized the CPU/GPU and PC building isn't my field so I could way off. But here's my honest attempt at it without paying a premium for the form factor which isn't an important feature for me:
The RTX 5060 will be significantly faster than the Steam Machine on games with hardware ray tracing effects, which tend to be the more demanding games.
Government contract is not a subsidy. It's a payment for a product or service provided to the government. Examples of subsidies are section 8 housing or USDA PLC. SpaceX providing launch services to the government is nothing like that.
Distinction without a difference as it pertains to the conversation. Most of the money SpaceX received from the government was under the COTS program where NASA gave SpaceX money to develop a product and then NASA would become a customer of that product. It is as close as you can get to a technical subsidy without it being technically a subsidy.
reply