Rioghasarig

But you also have to take into account that people from outside academia can also contribute to math. Especially nowadays with the help of AI. Just because the role of academia is shrinking doesn't mean math progress is slowing.

I think we need to separate the academic institution of mathematics from the practice of math as a human passion. When it comes to people working on math problems out of a sense of fun and curiosity AI doesn't really block them. People who are interested trying to understand math and even crack unsolved problems will always exist.

The question is if our academic institutions are able to properly support such people and enable them to do the best that they can. AI destabilizes the way we've operated in the past. So academia has to change a lot if it hopes to continue to be a place that fosters mathematical talent.

I really doubt it's like a "solid junior developer". If it could do the work of a solid junior developer it would be making programming projects 10-100x faster because it can do things several times faster than a person can. Maybe it can write solid code for certain tasks but that's not the same thing as being a junior developer.

I think it was deliberate but just as a joke.

This doesn't seem very helpful at all. First it seems impossibly difficult to execute and probably won't benefit the artists much.

>Not, if the worker is an engineer or similar. Some engineers built tools that improved building tools

Those engineers consented to creating the new tools so that's different

How is it "technically correct"? It's just plain wrong.

Clearly pi = 0003.14159...

> You only see top programmers who started as kids and probably won some Olympiads and programming competitions, and this continued in their 20s and maybe kept their skill up till 30s but that's about it. What do they do after that?

I know in mathematics, winning the math olympiad makes someone far more likely to win the Fields medal, but I haven't heard of a similar correlation in programming (e.g. for the Turing award).

I don't see how being a young prodigy gives someone an advantage in most of the programming world.

How in the world is that disingenuous? That's the direct implication.

> As any generalization this one too is, of course, incorrect.

His statement wasn't a generalization to repeating this back does not make sense.

I mean that's where the term came from, after all.

I think the description in the article was actually good. In particular, the part where they say:

> This is the metaphor used to describe the unpredictability of chaotic systems:tiny uncertainties in the initial conditions of a system grow and grow until they completely destroy the accuracy of any forecast

This doesn't seem too far off from you say.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a bad experiment. Anyone familiar with DALL-E would predict this result. He should have taken some time to understand what DALL-E can do and proposed an actually interesting experiment.

I think it's just a bad experiment. The author must have been truly ignorant about the capabilities and utilities of DALL-E if he thought this experiment would yield interesting results.