deepburner

I came to the comments to complain about how unreadable it was, saw that it was the movfuscator guy, went back to check if I somehow made a mistake but no, if anything that writeup is one of the egregious ones I've seen recently. What a shame, I really liked his talks.

I understand vibe coding a website if you only care about putting out the info but this is sloppenheimer levels of garbage. It reeks of stunted, far up its own ass Claude-isms everywhere and none of the prose is remotely readable without wanting to running headbutt a wall. Seriously, "Private Equity" was too long so you decided to write "Ownership Type: PE-owned"? I despise ai writing so much and shame on you.

I'm no ai maximalist, quite the opposite in fact, and I have a great deal of sympathy for the author as a person from a similar trade. However perhaps he is being overly emotional in his response. Purists have been decrying the defilement of the trade for millennia - "but this time it's different!" no. you think the purest form of math is the one you were born into because you didn't know any other way. people were doing math before the abacus and will continue to do so afterwards. here a hot take even: there's no finite amount of math, if you really cared about math you would be excited about all the math you could uncover. the computer solving the jacobian conjecture isn't fulfilling enough for you? maybe start thinking about what this discovery implies then!

Besides, doing pure math as a vocation was and still is an incredibly niche and privileged profession that 1-O(e^-n) of the population had access to anyways. If anything we will need more mathematicians, more engineers and more physicists to keep up with the increased throughput. Maybe journals will finally start EMPLOYING (gasp!) some referees instead of relying on free labor from broke graduate students even!

I'm rather tired of this ai apologism bit where every downside is explained away as "it would've happened anyways". AI destroying people's brains and causing paychosis? They would've gone psychotic anyways! AI causing company culture problems? The company was toxic anyways!

Instruments are not inculpable as you think they are.

I dont know where that “Those who cannot do, teach” bullshit came from but it's absolute nonsense someone made up to dunk on teachers.

It doesnt even make sense in your post because "programming" isn't "doing computer science". You're not better than a teacher in any notion because you asked chatgpt to generate some slop.

This whole article is just a nothingburger. Saying something is applied topology is only one step more advanced than saying something is maths - duh. These mathematical abstractions are incredibly general and and you can pretty much draw up anything in terms of anything, the challenging part is being able to turn around and use the model/abstraction to say things about the thing you're abstracting. I don't think scholars have been very successful in that regard, less so this article.

Yeah deep learning is applied topology, it's also applied geometry, and probably applied algebra and I wouldn't be surprised if it was also applied number theory.

Good luck helping somebody paralyzed from the neck down live a fulfilling life.

it... doesn't? threshold theorems are well known.

I'm sorry if this is nitpicky but your comment is hilarious to me - doubling something is doubling something, "changing the order of magnitude" would entail multiplication by 10.

Not only you're responding with an ad-hominem, which is blatantly bad enough; but you're doing it against Benjamin Franklin? One of the most influential thinkers of his time who has contributed to the liberty of way more people than you ever will?

Did you really think "they just call them grandma/pa" was a good argument against people not knowing their grandparents' names? What do you think people in other parts of the world call their grandparents?

"Maybe this person who did this for 20 years did not know what they were doing" is such an HN take.

Nowhere in the text you quoted (nor in the article body) it is said that simulation of this device can not be done. Had you read the paper you'd see that it _is_ about simulating this device. From the introduction: "After students are introduced to several projects in quantum computer simulation, they write code to simulate the operation of Mermin’s quantum device."

This is immaterial, however. It is a well known fact that BQP is in PSPACE and Clifford circuits (a subclass of quantum circuits) can not only be simulated classically, but done so efficiently. It is not controversial.

The first reference in the article you linked is titled "Computer simulation of Mermin's quantum device".