Gabriel54

Your example is not something that can be formally verified.

This question strikes me as strange, because it has always been in the nature of the mathematical community to share results as openly and widely as possible. Hong Wang’s work was in the public domain and was meant to be built upon. This is what human mathematicians have been doing for centuries.

Sometimes the particular case is the hard case (as opposed to the general or high-dimensional case), so it is not so clear without looking at the respective proofs. Nevertheless of course it is a remarkable achievement!

As other people are pointing out, we are going to great rhetorical lengths to avoid the empirical fact that in almost every major event based on physical strength or endurance, men outperform women. Are suggesting that every data point from every cultural, ethnic, national background in the world is contaminated by sexist bias?

Is a marathon a power event?

That thought certainly crossed my mind, but having worked with people using LLMs for this purpose successfully, this instead comes across as taking a simple idea and asking {model} to expand this two or three sentence idea into a web page.

Using AI to go through an old manuscript has nothing to do with writing up those same results with AI. These are completely separate concerns.

I don't like to frame it in terms of, "this person is using AI, so I am no longer interested in communicating", because it is not really the AI that is the problem. It is the lack of effort put into communication with another human. AI can be extremely helpful for some people (e.g., proofreading text if one's native language isn't English). But this use case is almost never a problem if done carefully because the original ideas were all there in the beginning.

I focus my frustration on writing that is circular, vague, unnecessarily explanatory, etc. In my experience this is a symptom of the fact that there were no original ideas to begin with.

I am very happy to see people make use of AI to do previously impractical work, but the quality of writing on this page sounds like a poorly written middle school research paper.

> Not a diary, not a family chronicle - a tool book.

> As reliable as it says on each page - no more and no less.

> Pages without a special note have been editorially reviewed: carefully checked and corrected.

This sounds like an extremely interesting topic but the lack of care in the presentation is disappointing.

Regex can also be horribly slow - it depends on the particular regex you are using.

Where are you getting this from? I've never heard this and I am a native speaker. Also none of the dictionaries I have access to mention this. E.g., one says:

> likely to have a strong or far-reaching effect; radical and extreme: a drastic reduction of staffing levels.

I was only a lowly TA so I saw these issues from afar, but I would add that, on a more optimistic note, I don't think I've ever met an instructor who wouldn't do whatever he or she had to do to support someone with special needs. As you suggested, metrics do not tell the whole story and certainly metrics for the sake of metrics are not helpful and may in fact be dangerous.

That said there is certainly a lot more work that needs to be done in this area. Hopefully these regulations over time bring out practical positive change. Time will tell.

I'm reading the comments here and confused by one thing... Do people here not purchase fresh fruit and vegetables on a regular basis (i.e. multiple times a week)? I am not an expert on Costco but it seems insane to visit a store the size of Costco every couple of days just to buy some tomatoes and parsley.

Well, to be fair, it has made every course hosted on Canvas equally accessible to everyone. ;)

Canvas has an easy way of checking if a pdf or other course material is accessible, so many universities are forcing faculty to put all their materials on Canvas. That way if a pdf or powerpoint is not compliant it is immediately flagged. The goal is to reach a "100% accessible" metric.

Note that little of this really helps the students that it is supposed to help, because as you wisely point out, raw HTML is almost by definition extremely accessible. I work in a field that uses Latex and the source code of Latex should also be considered more accessible than the compiled pdf. But for university administrators the only important thing is that the accessibility metric that appears (or used to appear, before today!) on Canvas shows 100% accessible.