I'm not certain. In an aging society, the thing they'd need are young laborers. People with 30 years of savings are unlikely to be either young, nor laborers.
Maybe those wealthy immigrants are very talented people who are very good at, say, managing an insurance company or researching pharmaceuticals, but Japan has a glut of 55-year-olds who can do that stuff very well. They're running short of young people who can be nurses, junior machinists, and construction workers.
In a macroeconomic sense, wealthy people might be able to pay for the services they need from their own pockets, but functionally it's not that different than being unemployed (unless they choose to work). They would be almost purely adding demand to the economy. The wealth they are bringing represents supply that they added into the economy in the past and abroad, and now they have a wallet full of paper with which they can buy services for the next 30 years in Japan without having to do any further productive work.
Maybe the military should just seize the technology and nationalize the company then? Because clearly, paying a private party voluntarily entering into a contract on mutually-agreed upon terms is now a polite fiction that can be done away with.
It's funny, I buy some software and the license says "for student and non-commercial use only", which lets me get it for $50 instead of the $5000 that an enterprise would pay. But I can just ignore that clause or declare them a supply-chain risk if they try to hold me to it, because now that they've taken my $50, who are they to dictate how I use it? I can do whatever I want, not just what the vendor thinks I should, right? A contact is just paper, right?
They're offering a service, with contractual limitations that the Pentagon agreed to.
It doesn't seem any different to me than Dominos pizza offering to deliver pizzas to the Pentagon but not to the strait of Hormuz. If that somehow makes the military subordinate to Dominos Pizza, just because Dominos is able to dictate the terms of their own delivery service, then sure, ban anyone in the military supply chain from being able to order pizzas. It would make the same amount of sense.
The difference would be the DoW needing a a Tehran pizza delivery service, and thus saying "None of our pizza delivery services can use Dominos because they refuse to do the work we need".
Declaring Dominos a supply chain risk means that Boeing cannot order a Dominos pizza for their board meeting in Arlington, because Boeing sells F-35s to the Pentagon, and Dominos wouldn't agree to deliver pizzas to a war zone.
Declaring Anthropic a supply chain risk means that Boeing can't use Claude to draft a poster informing people about the board meeting.
The previous power plant manager had, of course, already signed a contract agreeing to those terms; the power plant is subsequently under new management and upset about being bound by this contract, so they designate that none of their suppliers of parts and fuel are allowed to have any commercial dealings with the pen manufacturer or use these pens for any purpose, even writing.
> The previous power plant manager had, of course, already signed a contract agreeing to those terms
It's even more perplexing in this case though, because the original DoD contract was signed in July 2025. It was the same "plant manager" just arbitrarily changing their mind in the middle of the contract they signed.
And why would the manager ban the manufacturers pens even for writing, except out of spite to punish the manufacturer? And coming back to the real case, is the supply chain risk designation supposed to be a punishment or only there to actually protect the supply chain?
It turns out that a gun is usable for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons, and so it’s rational to both be concerned about the presence of a gun and work very hard to make sure only reasonable people are ever in a position to use it, and that’s not a contradictory position with the notion that one might actually need a gun under certain circumstances.
And if the military needs guns to both shoot at humans and animals and a gun factory says “these guns are for shooting small animals only, using them against humans would be inhumane” and refuse to sell them to the Navy Seals, they would be designated a supply chain risk?
Why not just stop buying their guns and let contractors still use those guns if they need guns to shoot animals?
If you have pens in the building, and staff need a pen, they will use the pen that is available, even if there’s a sign saying “not for purpose x”. If you want to stop that happening, you need to not have limited pens available to your staff at all.
Ah so a defense contractor won’t be allowed to use Claude to create their website because they might later want to do some target selection for military strikes using AI and then they wouldn’t be able to use Claude?
Close enough - if they’re using Claude for anything, the DOD can’t trust that staff didn’t also use it in product development, so they’d have to keep track of everything downstream of that component to ensure it was never used for target selection.
It could also be as simple as "anything tainted by the Claude non-targeting-conditions can't be used in target selection, and we don't want to leak classified information about which components we use in target selection by requiring specific items to be developed without Claude, so we can't allow it anywhere".
That's not accurate. DOD suppliers weren't banned from having "any commercial dealings" with Anthropic. They were banned from using Anthropic for their work with the DOD.
That's true legally, but the government's public statements did initially very explicitly present this as a ban on any dealing.
"Anthropic a Supply-Chain Risk to National Security. Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic."
Presumably, according to the defenders of the designation in this thread, this was an innocent mistake that doesn't indicate any political intent.
The way things work, the CIOs and CSOs of these companies just implement blanket bans, so it really is effectively a ban for any use. Source: I am at one such company.
This is making assumptions about the nature of charge and its relation to force that are what is under discussion! We get no guarantee from nature that the force is linear in the amount of charge; if it turned out to be sqrt(charge) then we'd still have to deal with it. We could redefine charge to the sqrt of the previous quantity, but then other aspects of linearity (like conservation of charge) would have to take a different form.
We're lucky (and maybe only in the linear domain, which is more accurately the case) that these ended up being the same.
But if it were sqrt(charge) then we'd define Culoumbs constant to have commensurate units to translate sqrt(charge) * sqrt(charge) / distance^2 to force units.
Partitioning a charge can't change the physics. If i have a bar of charge Q generating a force F on q which is proportional to sqrt Q then by partition i have n bars of charge Q_i = Q/n producing forces F_i
sqrt Q ~ F <> sum F_i = sum sqrt(Q_i) = sum sqrt(Q/n) = n * sqrt (Q/n) = sqrt (Qn)
Partitioning charge would lead to infinite forces.
I don't know..I doubt for example it can come up with special relatively if it has knowledge up until 1905.
But I think that is what makes it so good at coding, because coding and building software in general has a lot of repeated problems in different context. Same thing for human lives, many think their story or situation are unique, but reality is that the shape of human life has been repeated many many times.
I'd say novel math or scientific theories..let us say we send a robot to space, and we ask to build a colony. A lot of the challenges this robot will face will be novel, it could use inspirations of what humans did on earth, but it might get stuck when things don't work as expected and training data has nothing to build on..but then again we might teach it how to run experiments etc, which would result in data that it can use..but some of those experiments might require imagination or breakthrough in understanding..my guess is that it will get stuck there...
The Lorentz transformations were pretty close to special relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation I don't claim that I could have discover it, but in a parallel universe without Einstein I expect it to be discovered, perhaps 10 years later, but there were a lot of breadcrumbs in 1904.
General relativity is harder, but Poincare was somewhat oriented in the right direction. Perhaps AI can discover the final step.
Quantum mechanics is harder. You need like 25 years and a few unintuitive leaps to discover it. I guess it's too hard for AI in 2026, but remember to check again in 2027.
Viereck (Interviewer): How do you account for your discoveries? Through intuition or inspiration?
Einstein: Discussing intuition and his confidence in relativity, noting he was convinced the 1919 eclipse would confirm his hypothesis.
Viereck: Then you trust more to your imagination than to your knowledge?
Einstein: I am enough of the artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.
-----
I think we need more breakthroughs to build AI that can "draw freely upon imagination" to quote Einstein describing his process.
David Hilbert presented the field equations of general relativity within a few weeks of Einstein, so if anything GR was more sure to appear than SR, which took years for others to even notice (Einstein became famous only after the 1919 experiment that confirmed GR). Pertinently to the recent Navier-Stokes drama, there was very little controversy between the two and they both admitted that the other got some aspect better.
Yes of course he is going to use resources around him, that is not the point. It took a leap of imagination to apply it the way he did and think differently.
And this again because it's a solid argument and popular example of human ingenuity.
https://mathoverflow.net/q/511601 is a fun little math problem that came up in one of my projects, I didn't have any reason to expect it to be particularly tough, but none of the models I've thrown at it have been able to solve it past a few minor reductions and special cases.
I expect that there is some relatively easy-to-state solution to this problem, but that it's different in form from what most existing proofs and tools yield. Perhaps if I dumped millions of dollars into it an agent might chance on the solution. Or perhaps my luck is such that my fun little problem is truly intractable...
Well it's an old one at this point, but the story around the invention of the 1-time pad is pretty interesting. Long story short, a new engineer who didn't know the problem was considered "impossible" was tasked with sorting it out, and he did. I'm sure I left out a lot of details.
It's a brilliant idea, of course. But being considered "impossible" means it was considered previously and decided to be impossible. No?
I mean, crpytographically, it's ultra-trivial. You "just" need to solve the logistical issues of (1) shortwave radio existing (2) figuring out how to make sure your field agents possess and are not caught with the disposable one-time codes. I am surprised anybody would consider that impossible.
(I hope I am not downplaying the brilliance of the one-time pad idea itself)
A child walking for the first time. Novelty is easiest agent-relative. A problem is novel for an agent if there is no prior experiences of techniques which work to solve it.
I was defining novelty somewhat more narrowly. The 'program' a child must learn concerns the coordination of its sensory-motor system. It has no prior experience of similar programs in the program-class Walking (ie., the internal sensory-motor actions needed to walk) . So we could call the problem of learning to walk a novel one for that child.
I'd be surprised if direct observation of parents etc. played much of a direct role in learning to walk. I would guess it more furnishes the child's imagination so it can simulate itself walking -- rather than the statistical AI approach of 'learning the distribution of walking patterns in visual sensation'.
The ability to simulate possible programs is one of the capacities which enable coping with novel circumstances. My guess is the child learns to walk by updating its simulation of what it needs to do in order to walk, by its attempts to walk.
This simulation<->sensory-motor-update loop is missing in LLMs, for example.
just because humans couldn't solve does not mean the necessary technique were not already discovered...we have agents that don't get tired and has access to all humanity knowledge, the building blocks could be there already..
this is not moving the goalposts, this is try to understand what this tech truly able and not able to do.
He needed his friend and math genius, Marcel Grossman, to turn his imagination into a workable theory. AI may be our own personal Marcel Grossman at this point.
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited, whereas imagination encircles the world,” means that facts alone only describe what currently exists, while imagination allows us to discover what is yet unproven or unbuilt"
This probably sums up the current AI limitation nicely.
There's a theory that the best way to reduce fatalities from car accidents is to put seatbelts and airbags in every car.
There's another theory that says the best way is by putting a big spike in the driver's steering wheel.
So. I guess, if you believe that the only viable solution is model alignment, rather than relying on technical barriers to exfiltrating weights, then this is a decent steering wheel spike.
Because the car case just has too much empirical evidence that safety features are the way to go for cars. We used to have the equivalent of "spikes" and people still drove a lot, and died, at way higher rates.
> We used to have the equivalent of "spikes" and people still drove a lot,
No, we did not. The point of that example is to put a literal spike in the driving wheel, so the driver recognizes a very well known, immediate life-threatening device a few inches from their body. This would act as a deterrent to go fast, because they would be the one certainly dying in basically any case outside smooth driving.
This is so far from the point of the analogy. But when you don't normalize by miles driven, the improvements don't look quite as impressive, especially for pedestrians.
Sounds like this would fix so many problems with cars today, simply by making car ownership something to be dreaded, not desired. From traffic jams and traffic accidents, to car-dependent neighborhoods and cities - all solved by preventing general population from building their lives around driving. Even salaries for drivers of delivery/logistics and utility vehicles, as hazard pay would apply.
Now, a spike may be a good reminder, but practical solution might be more along the lines of mandatory redesign of safety features like crumple zones, so that energy of impact is dissipated primarily into the space occupied by the driver.
(Bonus: that still leaves all the energy dissipation options currently present on the table, so cars would be strictly safer for passengers.)
No, I'm saying -- and I can't believe I have to spell this out -- that pedestrians should be rolling around inside giant steel spiked balls like sea urchins.
Reinforcement learning makes it something different. It becomes much more of a search engine through next-token-space that targets the training objective. Better to think about it like that, and then you'll see why "these things have motive" is not a terrible analogy, and you'll better be able to anticipate what they do.
Maybe those wealthy immigrants are very talented people who are very good at, say, managing an insurance company or researching pharmaceuticals, but Japan has a glut of 55-year-olds who can do that stuff very well. They're running short of young people who can be nurses, junior machinists, and construction workers.
In a macroeconomic sense, wealthy people might be able to pay for the services they need from their own pockets, but functionally it's not that different than being unemployed (unless they choose to work). They would be almost purely adding demand to the economy. The wealth they are bringing represents supply that they added into the economy in the past and abroad, and now they have a wallet full of paper with which they can buy services for the next 30 years in Japan without having to do any further productive work.
reply