"Most ways of constructing accurate models mathematically don’t actually work" > This is true for almost anything at the limit, we are already able to model spatiotemporal dynamics to some useful degree (see: progress in VLAs, video diffusion, 4D Gaussians)

"We’ve known for well over a decade that you cannot cram real-world spatial dynamics into those models. It is a clear impedance mismatch" > What's the source that this is a physically impossible problem? Not sure what you mean by impedance mismatch but do you mean that it is unsolvable even with better techniques?

Your whole third paragraph could have been said about LLMs and isn't specific enough, so we'll skip that.

I don't really understand the other 2 paragraphs, what's this "dark state-of-the-art computer science" you speak of and what is this "area of research became highly developed over two decades but is not in the public literature" how is "the computer science required is so different from classical AI research"?

▲

calf 2 days ago | parent [-]

Above commenter also asserts "highly developed research but no public literature" shrug ...

▲

jandrewrogers 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

It was a national security program that plenty of people are familiar with and has been used across several countries. None of those programs publish.

As much as the literature doesn’t exist, the tech has been used in production for over a decade. That’s just my word of course but a lot of people know. :shrug:

	▲	calf a day ago \| parent [-]
		This is as rhetorically valid as knowing about UFOs, it smells of crackpot science.

▲

fu-hn 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

But the best minds in the world said so!