Pinned Tweet
Replying to @IzRamin
Eskarikokeilussa toteutimme kansallisen tasokokeen ykkösluokkalaisille 148 kokeilukunnassa. Jokainen asiantuntijaryhmä yliarvioi kokeilun vaikutukset vähintään kolminkertaisesti, eikä yksikään osannut ennakoida vaikutusten katoavan kokonaan ensimmäiselle luokalle tultaessa.
Ramin Izadi retweeted
Claude Opus 5.5: "If these hold up, this is the biggest single day in the history of math and theoretical computer science."
1) Exponential Time Hypothesis is false (CS). This is roughly Turing Award territory. ETH was the working assumption that some hard problems simply can’t be solved much faster than brute force, and hundreds of computer science papers rest on it. For a normal audience: it’s not “P=NP.” Hard problems are still hard, and your bank encryption isn’t suddenly broken. But a pillar that a whole field assumed was solid turned out to be hollow. The flagship experts are taking it seriously. The people checking it include two of the people who proposed ETH, and they said “If the claim is correct, it will change” computer science.
2) Kakeya and restriction in all dimensions (math). This is Fields Medal-level. For scale, the 3D case alone was proved in 2025 and was hailed as a once-in-a-century proof. This result does every dimension and knocks out Stein’s restriction conjecture too.
3) Yang–Mills/QCD existence (physics). Potentially the biggest of the three, but here’s the precise framing. It proves pure Yang–Mills exists, which is part of one of the Clay Mathematics Institute’s Millennium Prize problems. The full Clay problem also requires the “mass gap,” so it’s not a clean “AI wins $1M” headline. Still, a rigorous proof that the theory of quarks and gluons is mathematically real has been an open dream for about 50 years. The review panel includes Nobel laureate David Gross and Arthur Jaffe, who literally wrote the Millennium problem. There’s no Nobel for math, but this is the stuff physicists win them for building on.
Announcing three major scientific discoveries, one each in mathematics (harmonic analysis), computer science (complexity theory), and physics (quantum field theory).
AI starting to help us improve our understanding of the universe! openai.com/index/building-sc…
Ramin Izadi retweeted
Lots of things are like this
We recently decided that "marginalization", like "stigma", was universally bad, but it's actually an advanced social technology that makes liberalism workable
It has to be possible for something to be bad but not banned, that's a very useful space
Replying to @SCHIZO_FREQ @hot_cocoa_girl
And there’s actually no reason these two things have to be a package deal. You can just separate them
Sluts have always existed but only recently did we decide to make them sponsored podcasters
Ramin Izadi retweeted
AI productivity gains are showing up, but only in ~15% of jobs.
The three heaviest AI adopters (information, professional services, finance) went from a 2.2% productivity trend to 5.0% since 2022.
The rest of the economy: 0.9% to 1.4%.
A fact check here.
Focusing first on secular trends, the US has not cut taxes over the last fifty years. The fraction of GDP collected as federal taxes in 1975 was almost exactly the same as it was in 2025, at slightly above 17%.
At the same time, there has been a significant reduction in defense spending (cut to about half) and an even more dramatic explosion in welfare spending. More than 100% of the US primary budget deficit growth over the last fifty years is due to this explosion in welfare spending.
The welfare spending growth is explained by two factors: relentless secular expansion of various welfare programs and unfavorable demographic change.
The cyclical variation in the US budget deficit shown in the below post’s graph is not explained by tax rates or tax law changes. On the spending side, the cyclical variation is almost entirely explained by the unemployment rate. On the revenue side, the remaining cyclical variation not explained by unemployment is explained by realized capital gains tax collections fluctuating with the stock market.
Furthermore, the US tax code is complex, and about 90% of the text is about various tax incentives not to pay the headline statutory tax rates. The headline statutory tax rates have approximately zero time-series regression R² explaining the budget deficit or even tax collections in the US. That’s why “tax cuts” in the US aren’t tax cuts historically, they are tax reforms broadening the base.
Lisää suomalaista näyttöä siitä että uudistusten vaikutuksia on vaikea arvioida kunnon tutkimusasetelmaa. Asiantuntijat arviot arviot eivät ole edes keskimäärin oikeassa.
Ylioptimismi on tavallista asiantuntijoiden ennakkoarvioinneissa. Ei ihme että uudistukset osoittautuvat usein pettymyksiksi.
nber.org/papers/w34493?hl=en…
Ja moite ei siis koske asiantuntijoita. Toteutuksen yksityiskohdilla on paljon väliä ja on hyvin vaikea ennakoida mikä niiden yhteisvaikutus on.
Ramin Izadi retweeted
Oppimistulosten mittaamisen ja taustadatan keräämisen järkevyyden ymmärtämiseksi kannattaa lukea paitsi yle.fi/a/74-20230643, myös samf.substack.com/p/why-engl…? ja Hannu Karhusen labore.fi/julkaisu/mita-tied… sekä useat blogit Laboren sivulla, esim. labore.fi/julkaisu/on-arvova…
Ramin Izadi retweeted
Yhtä ymmälläni kuin Juhana. Jos ei ole systemaattista tietoa oppimistuloksista, niiden muutoksista yli ajan eikä niihin liitettävissä taustatietoja oppilaista, opettajista, koulun resursseista , on vaikea päätellä yhtään mitään, ks. esim. yle.fi/a/74-20230643
Replying to @KatarinaMurto
Minä en vieläkään ymmärrä mihin tuo teidän armoton vastustuksenne oikeasti perustuu. Sehän on opettajan etu, että saadaan luotettavaa kausaalitietoa ja yksilötietoa opetuksen onnistumisesta. Miksi?
Kaikilla on lempiteoriansa sille, miksi suomalaisten koululaisten osaaminen on laskenut jyrkästi viimeisen 20 vuoden aikana. Vaikka syistä oltaisiin yksimielisiä, se ei vielä kerro, millä uudistuksilla suunta käännetään. Asiantuntijatkaan eivät ole oraakkeleja. 🧵

























