don_esteban

Non insignificant parts of west are high-trust societies as well. Sadly, decreasing, and not only because of immigration from not-such places.

Care to elaborate? (Btw, Asia in itself is the majority of the world)

1) Higher-level publicity stunt.

"Our previous version was super-smart, but a bit autistic, even the smartest mathematicians had problems understanding it. The new version is not only super-smart, but can also efficiently communicate its ideas, so that they can be used in real life."

2) Actually, try to use the AI's smarts to gain in real life (not only convincing others to pay you, but actually do the smartest things). Hmmmm, scratch that, that is too idealistic. Use the AI's smarts to become the strongest meanest bastard the others will have no choice but to obey, or else.

Well, yes, in theory.

If any of those papers were sent to a scientific conference, they would have been rejected as inscrutable gibberish: "resubmit once the presentation is significantly improved".

Yet, mathematicians spend their time trying to understand them.

Real life prisoner's dilemma.

a) because the AI is not able to write papers in a manner digestible by humans? b) perhaps because AI generates papers whose complexity is beyond what a human brain can grasp?

Aaaa, you mean 'peer-review' by AI?

Then the answer is: What is the use of a paper no human understands? Then no human can see that the techniques from the paper can be used to build something useful for real human life.

OK, ok, AI can decide to use those techniques to do something in real life it considers useful.

Are you now getting scared? Why not?

Leaving aside the (much more important) issue of monopolizing intelligence, and assuming the claimed result is indeed correct, the question is whether a) the correctness proof is indeed too complex to be understood by humans, or b) the creator (the LLM) is not able to write it down in a form digestible by humans.

Observing the LLM output on problems that have clear solutions invented by humans, I tend to believe that too many people are jumping to conclusions too soon and interpreting b) as a).

If the LLMs are truly so great, we should see (in a short time, i.e. in order of months) a transformation of the math proofs generated by LLMs from the current state of indigestible mess to something that indeed looks like written by human for humans.

Only then would one be able to claim that we got into situation a).

Can you be more explicit?

I absolutely do not understand what are you talking about.

The question whether the tautologies exists regardless of whether we know about them or not is absolutely not a problem that is studied by mathematics and can be proven by mathematics.

When the mainstream institutions are obviously divorced from reality ( Nordstream - "Russians did it themselves", or every mainstream news segment in spring 2022 starting with "unprovoked full scale invasion of Ukraine" where even a casual glance at numbers involved (~ 180000) pales in comparison with what US used in Iraq I or II), you don't need disinformation narratives to elicit skepticism against mainstream institutions. A bit of common sense is entirely sufficient.

One could even argue the mainstream institutions were involved in disinformation narratives (e.g., in the case of 40 beheaded babies or widespread systematic rape on Oct 7th: did not bother to check the facts before spreading it wide).

The Ukrainian drones are not blowing up launchers. They are blowing up refineries and warehouses.

This.

You could probably count 100+ people in the death zone of the border crossing video alone. The final death toll will be terrible, with most never found.

That factory looked like it employed a lot of easily replaceable manual work.

You don't have to replace 100% of workforce, replace just the ones whose work is the easiest to do by a robot.

Replacing 50% of workforce buys you enough time that by the time your available worker pool has shrunk 50%, robotics and AI will be much better and you will be able to replace another big chunk.

Production-wise, shrinking demographics are not such a big deal (they still have a lot of youth unemployment).

Shrinking demographics is a problem due to a) the ratio of workers vs seniors, b) shrinking overall demand pool -> shrinking economy c) smaller overall talent pool -> less diversity, less 'geniuses', i.e. the real drivers of innovation, and less capability to mobilize for great projects

One of the (many) areas in which China is doing great is industrial robotics. Not the fancy dancing dogs, but robots that replace workers in factories.

Hmm, 19 calories per day is well within the margin of error when calorie counting.