全部 AI 动态

http://x.com/i/article/2078175024880795648

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2607.14345 Website with model responses and CoT: http://valueleakage.net Authors: @BetleyJan @j_treutlein @jan_dubinski_ @HarryMayne5 @karolgalazka @nielsrolf1 @anna_sztyber myself.

What happens when you roll out custom generative AI to half a country's judges? New paper on Pakistan's courts with @ProfSultanEcon and @gochristoph. In line with http://wemustactnow.ai -- we provide early empirical evidence on the impacts of transformative generative AI.

AI has helped resolve an important question in statistics. In the area of multiple hypothesis testing, the goal of controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) has been introduced in a seminal paper by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). They also introduced a method (the Benjamini-Hochberg or BH method) and proved it controls the FDR. This method has been widely adopted in modern high-throughput science, including in genomics, astronomy, economics, etc. The paper has has garnered more than 130,000 citations to date. However Benjamini and Hochberg showed FDR control only when the data for the individual tests are *independent*. In practice, these data are often dependent; a good example is data on genetic variants due to linkage disequilibrium. Later work has focused on extending the validity of the BH procedure, e.g., to a form of positive dependence by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001). The question of when the BH procedure controls the FDR has remained open. Over the last twenty years, many authors, including Reiner-Benaim (2007), Kim and van de Wiel (2008), Benjamini (2010), Sarkar (2023), Sarkar and Zhang (2025), have conjectured that the BH procedure controls the FDR for two-sided tests using any correlated Gaussian data. These authors have presented both theoretical and empirical evidence supporting, but not directly showing, the conjecture. With the help of AI (specifically GPT-5.6 Sol Pro), I have settled the question in the negative: The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure does *not* generally control the false discovery rate at the desired level for correlated two-sided Gaussian tests. This was done by exhibiting a Gaussian factor model for which, at a nominal level alpha=0.01, the false discovery rate is proved to be FDR>0.0104. There is a lot of interesting commentary to be made: 1. This result should be of interest to everybody in the field of statistics. Emmanuel Candes of Stanford University once called the false discovery rate and the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure "one of the two most important developments in statistics after 1950" (the other being James-Stein shrinkage). The present conjecture is probably the most central question about FDR/BH that was unresolved to date. 2. GPT-5.6 one-shot the problem after 90 minutes of reasoning, whereas with 5.5 I was not able to solve it even after iterating with multiple parallel agents for perhaps 20 hours. So the capability improvement is quite real. Exciting times to live in! 3. The argument is not especially surprising, but it does combine an asymptotic approach (standard for FDR analysis, see e.g., Genovese and Wasserman, Efron, etc) with a numerical certificate in a way that would be pretty non-standard in the field. Once we have the specific example, then straightforward simulations also support that the false discovery rate is indeed higher than the nominal value (see attached fig). 4. The current degree of violation over the nominal level is relatively small (0.104 vs 0.1). So the importance of this result is mainly conceptual. The practical implications remain to be determined. Overall, an exciting development! Preprint is available here (https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bh.pdf) and will be on arxiv tonight; supporting code is here (https://github.com/dobriban/BH).

AI has helped resolve an important question in statistics. In the area of multiple hypothesis testing, the goal of controlling the false discovery rate (FDR) has been introduced in a seminal paper by Benjamini and Hochberg (1995). They also introduced a method (the Benjamini-Hochberg or BH method) and proved it controls the FDR. This method has been widely adopted in modern high-throughput science, including in genomics, astronomy, economics, etc. The paper has has garnered more than 130,000 citations to date. However Benjamini and Hochberg showed FDR control only when the data for the individual tests are *independent*. In practice, these data are often dependent; a good example is data on genetic variants due to linkage disequilibrium. Later work has focused on extending the validity of the BH procedure, e.g., to a form of positive dependence by Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001). The question of when the BH procedure controls the FDR has remained open. Over the last twenty years, many authors, including Reiner-Benaim (2007), Kim and van de Wiel (2008), Benjamini (2010), Sarkar (2023), Sarkar and Zhang (2025), have conjectured that the BH procedure controls the FDR for two-sided tests using any correlated Gaussian data. These authors have presented both theoretical and empirical evidence supporting, but not directly showing, the conjecture. With the help of AI (specifically GPT-5.6 Sol Pro), I have settled the question in the negative: The Benjamini-Hochberg procedure does *not* generally control the false discovery rate at the desired level for correlated two-sided Gaussian tests. This was done by exhibiting a Gaussian factor model for which, at a nominal level alpha=0.01, the false discovery rate is proved to be FDR>0.0104. There is a lot of interesting commentary to be made: 1. This result should be of interest to everybody in the field of statistics. Emmanuel Candes of Stanford University once called the false discovery rate and the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure "one of the two most important developments in statistics after 1950" (the other being James-Stein shrinkage). The present conjecture is probably the most central question about FDR/BH that was unresolved to date. 2. GPT-5.6 one-shot the problem after 90 minutes of reasoning, whereas with 5.5 I was not able to solve it even after iterating with multiple parallel agents for perhaps 20 hours. So the capability improvement is quite real. Exciting times to live in! 3. The argument is not especially surprising, but it does combine an asymptotic approach (standard for FDR analysis, see e.g., Genovese and Wasserman, Efron, etc) with a numerical certificate in a way that would be pretty non-standard in the field. Once we have the specific example, then straightforward simulations also support that the false discovery rate is indeed higher than the nominal value (see attached fig). 4. The current degree of violation over the nominal level is relatively small (0.104 vs 0.1). So the importance of this result is mainly conceptual. The practical implications remain to be determined. Overall, an exciting development! Preprint is available here (https://faculty.wharton.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/bh.pdf) and will be on arxiv tonight; supporting code is here (https://github.com/dobriban/BH).

We scaled a robot model natively to 8,000 timesteps of context, 5 minutes worth of muscle memory, with constant inference cost. Robot policies used to live their lives a few frames at a time (< 0.1 sec), instantly forgetting what just happened. We pushed to 3 orders of magnitude beyond SOTA. Introducing RoboTTT. Test-Time Training (“TTT”) carries a tiny model *inside* the model. Every incoming sensor reading triggers one gradient step on that tiny core, so the history keeps getting compressed into its weights. The hidden state has a fixed size (literally a small neural net), so the robot can “grok” arbitrarily long experience with little overhead. Learning continues indefinitely after deployment. We can then put an entire video in context as prompt! RoboTTT enables one-shot in-context learning from human video: in circuit board assembly, a human demonstrates a never-seen configuration once, and the robot imitates it faithfully. Humans drop things all the time, but we pick them up so fast that we don’t even notice. That reflex to fix is half of our physical competence. RoboTTT shows self-improvement on the fly: the robot is skilled at recovering from its own errors mid-episode, and each fix enters its context to inform the next move. The TTT core distills a general-purpose, failure-to-correction mapping from the training data. One more thing. What excites me the most is a new Context Scaling Curve: from 128 to 8K timesteps, closed-loop performance hill-climbs steadily with no sign of saturation. 8K-context pretraining beats 1K by 62%. What LLM enjoys, robotics should too. Soon, even 1M context is not a fantasy. Deep dive in thread:

BREAKING: Chinese cybersecurity company just found a way around one of AI's most expensive problems. Meta built an AI model called SAM that could outline any object in a photo. The catch: it needed millions of hand-labeled images to learn how. 360 AI Research's new ECCV 2026 paper, MoSA teaches AI to recognize objects by watching video move. No human labels. 10,000 hours of unlabeled video. 21 million+ self-generated labels. Zero humans in the loop. Learn more 🧵👇