The sneaky new trend is to pretend that liability and regulation are in opposition. They aren’t. I discuss here, with a shout out to Sen @HawleyMO (who once quizzed me about this stuff but who definitely gets it now) and a challenge to @DavidSacks to explain his logic. Quotes from @mcuban and @KarenKornbluh, too!

If you think that a letter from 25 Field Medalists is about “cope” or keeping their jobs, you are mistaken. It is about beauty and insight and the fear that brute force cherry picking with mostly incomprehensible proofs (perhaps combined with a bit of IP theft) is going to undermine the field that they love, in the same way that slop has undermined the joy in other fields. Terence Tao has been quite clear about this in a series of elegant Mathstodon posts (which I have excerpted here and in my Substack) over the last several days. I advise anyone unclear about the above to read his posts (or my excerpts) to get context.

OpenAI is playing a very short term game, which is a sign of desperation and/or IPO greed. Instead of welcoming Alpöge and Buckmaster into a collaboration they bullied and set the stage for a war. Instead of playing straight, they obfuscated. Basically: we didn’t use the data *directly*. They want the attribution for the Millennial Prize but (a) the cloud will never go away and (b) few people will trust them going forward.