They factorize the distribution in which they are trained on which is essentially generalization

https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.02385

Yeah I wouldn't be surprised if journalist are getting high on their own supply of resentment and fear mongering

Maybe a nitpicky HN comment, but why are we lumping the term automation with very recent grievances about certain kinds of automation

The article literally draws that distinction in the first paragraph.

It does?

" Software brain is powerful stuff. It’s a way of thinking that basically created our modern world. Marc Andreessen, the literal embodiment of software brain, called it in 2011 when he wrote the piece “Why software is eating the world” as an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. But software thinking has been turbocharged by AI in a way that I think helps explain the enormous gap between how excited the tech industry is about the technology and how regular people are growing to dislike it more and more over time. "

I mean, even going back, people had all kinds of problems with all kinds of automations, e.g. Luddites and the subsequent starving in the streets.

I mean, I would think the opposite it the truth.

Other than a few masochist CEOs, most people don't like having to work for a living to ensure they don't starve and are homeless. It's just in the current paradigm it's what we have do to. And because we have to do it, people get really nervous when rich people attempt to replace human work with automation. Not because we won't have to work, but because we will have to starve.

People not wanting their jobs be automated is different from not yearning for automation as a principle. Most people want or (at least don't mind) elevators, tap water, dishwashers, traffic lights, electrical fuses, sliding doors, etc. Its a very general term

People want their bills and chores eliminated. Show them tech that does that and you'll be every working person's favorite human being. They'll be naming their kids after you.

They wouldn't mind their jobs being eliminated, except for that whole bills thing. Eliminate their jobs without eliminating their bills and they'll hate you.

Try refreshing or something, still works for me

I think its endearing

I might be misinterpreting but the LUAR model (which is a transformer) seems to do decently well

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-025-06340-3/figures/2

Yes, the paper itself tells a different story than the bullet points in this article.

> 75%

Wouldn’t an absolute number make more sense to show than a percent. 75% is pretty good in some places in the world (not justifying the discrepancy though)

Could this be used for batch filtering?

Lie brackets are bi-linear so whatever you do per example automatically carries over to sums, the bracket for the batch is just the pairwise brackets for elements in the batch, i.e. {a + b + c, d} = {a, d} + {b, d} + {c, d}. Similarly for the second component.

> Similarly for the second component.

Hmm.

{a + b, c + d} = {a, c + d} + {b, c + d} = {a, c} + {a, d} + {b, c} + {b, d}.

{a + b + c, x + y + z} = {a, x + y + z} + {b, x + y + z} + {c, x + y + z} = (a sum of nine direct brackets).

This doesn't look like it will scale well.

Then don't use the Lie bracket. All bilinear forms scale the same way.

The first sentence basically does though, no?

Of course my only objection was the language. LLMs are now old enough to leave the jargon behind and talk in simple easy to understand terms.

I’d argue the opposite, the terminology is fairly mainstream by now and “inference” has a much more specific sense than “making predictions”.