Jweb_Guru

Correct.

Because anything you can do easily with AI is by definition not valuable. I suppose if they really had a monopoly that would not be the case.

Then you aren't actively seeking out interesting things.

The typical human math paper does not have multiple unfixable errors, no.

Literally every single one of these papers was developed with an internal model that not even most OpenAI employees have access to.

Some people seem to absolutely refuse to understand that a lot of open source is done for the authors' personal enjoyment. There is absolutely no reason they have to accept AI contributions, no matter how much the author of this tweet wishes, and plenty of excellent reasons why they might not (e.g. they actually enjoy programming and the practice of programming). This would be true even if AI generated code were completely indistinguishable from human authored code, which it is not.

Unless you are using Anthropic's super secret model that won't be released until 2028 this is a pretty laughable assertion.

Employees at the companies that do this stuff know exactly what these regulations are for and are violating them quite deliberately. They don't actually think it's "government bureaucracy" whatever they tell the public.

The article claims that "for the first time, string theory is testable," when in reality:

* the tests here concern particles that aren't actually known to exist yet * lots of variants of string theory can be invalidated by the (non)existence of particles at particular masses or with particular properties * moreover, this kind of invalidation has already happened on many occasions * as usual it's only some models of string theory that are ruled out

So the headline and article are both kind of rubbish. In this case I wouldn't even say it's just a misleading headline because the article acts as though some (or even lots of) models of string theory getting hypothetically ruled out by a particle having a certain mass is a brand new thing.

Yeah people don't seem to get that the whole point of having a tightly checked kernel is so you don't have to care so much about the rest of it. Tactic heavy proofs have been "slop" long before LLMs got involved, and they lean heavily on the kernel rejecting nonsense.

Yes, clearly it's completely absurd to think that shredding rare books to more cheaply train LLMs is anything but a moral good, which is why there is this entire thread is full of people jumping through hoops to explain how it's technically legal (and therefore fine) and "you wouldn't have bought those books anyway" (I suppose we don't have the choice anymore!) and, most amusingly, "they're actually becoming digitized and searchable this way" (are LLMs stochastic parrots or aren't they?).

People are very desperate to try to claim that something that's somewhat obviously morally wrong is actually highly nuanced, because it makes them feel uncomfortable.

I think maybe a better way of explaining it would be that an uninformative proof by definition needs to be based on proving that the set under consideration must be inhabited without ever defining an object in that set. This generally means you must show the set is inhabited by exploring some abstract properties of the set itself. A single counterexample, by contrast, by itself is a direct proof that the set is inhabited, so you don't necessarily learn any other interesting properties about the set. So it's not really about constructive vs. non-constructive, I think it's closer to e.g. the idea that point-free stuff tends to be more beautiful and meaningful than pointed stuff (which I think most mathematicians would agree with and which really has nothing to do with intuitionism per se).

In this case, I think part of the problem is that there was kind of no good reason to think the Jacobian conjecture was true in > 2 dimensions other than it being kind of hard to find counterexamples. So a really interesting disproof would be one that, e.g., was able to exhaustively classify the counterexamples, or showed why it seemed in practice to be hard to come up with functions violating the conjecture. AFAIK, this doesn't really accomplish either of those things, not even after you learn the procedure that constructed the function -- it kind of tells you why we should have expected to find a counterexample but not how rare such counterexamples are.