VyseofArcadia

At the lower undergrad level, there was already no point in grading homework a decade ago because Wolfram Alpha existed.

At the graduate level maybe this problem is solved by doing Moore-style classes where the students present (on the chalkboard, not slides) and the professor critiques. Students could still have AI generate proofs and print them out or hand copy them, but maybe that's fine.

Upper undergrad level is tricky, because students are expected to prove things, but maybe don't have the maturity for full-on Moore-style.

There's a sort of unthinking maximalism in corporate culture. I'm sure Tahoe's menus are the product of a conversation that looks roughly like:

"Hey our metrics show that menu items with icons are interacted with more often."

"Oh we should put icons on every menu item and get our usage numbers up."

"I agree, bigger numbers are more impressive and will get us promotions or bonuses."

It's also not even correct. The diagram in README says the app is run on "built-in Java runtime" after it is converted, which, as I recall, is a virtual machine.

Mathematician, not physicist, but it seems reasonable to me that you could encode a sufficiently constrained 3D space on a 2D boundary. And if you have such an encoding, it also doesn't seem insane that some things might be more easily modeled on the 2D boundary than the 3D space.

If you can convert back and forth between a 2D representation and a 3D representation, and different phenomena are more easily modeled in each, does it matter which is "real"? Unless of course you can come up with a specific prediction and experiment to test it.

The DMCA is a bit overly broad to be considered just a copyright law. For example, just breaking encryption on a DVD is technically illegal regardless of whether you then go on to do something otherwise illegal (make and sell bootlegs) or perfectly legal (make a space-shifted backup copy on your hard drive).

IIRC this was an intentional handout to media companies who were angry that ripping CDs is perfectly legal. They had to find a way to make doing the same with DVDs illegal.

It would seem to me that the difference between the corporate world and organized crime is that a corporation can get away with, "the responsibility is too diffuse" but the mafia at least has to go to the trouble of finding a fall guy.

Do you have to charge an individual? Can you not charge the corporate "person" that is OpenAI?

Sorry if it is a stupid question, as mentioned above I am legally naïve.

How does this work, legally? I think that RubyGems could file a civil suit against OpenAI, but for a naïve non-lawyer reading this seems like a pretty clear cut criminal violation of the computer fraud and abuse act.

I thought this was well known.

Anecdata, but my wife's grandmother famously liked her coffee pretty much scalding, and we did indeed lose her to esophageal cancer.

Regardless of the end result, OpenAI's behavior would be a career-ending ethics scandal for a human mathematician. This bit alone would be a career-ender.

> According to Buckmaster, OpenAI offered to give him sole authorship on the Navier-Stokes solution—but only if Alpöge’s name was removed from the work and if the write-up would acknowledge the problem had been resolved by an internal OpenAI model.

I wonder if an appropriate response from the mathematical community would be a good old-fashioned shunning. Mathematicians are allowed to use OpenAI's tools as much as they want, but no one with any current or prior OpenAI affiliation gets published in a reputable journal, ever.

This one feels like it deserves more than just an Ig Nobel.

Fairphone products have been available in the US officially for ages. This is just the ability to purchase direct from Fairphone.

I bought a Fairphone 4 from Murena years ago (and am still using it), and I bought a pair of Fairbuds XL just in April from the same.