guy_named_matt

I think that this specific blog post is an important one for history.

The stunned responses indicate a set of some of humanity's brightest struggling to comprehend the emergence of such an incomprehensibly creative and powerful intelligence.

AI has come for coding.

AI has come for mathematics.

AI will come for everything else if we don't do something NOW.

but.... why is that? if scientific papers were written well (and i'm implicating the science publishing guidelines + accepted culture of scientific writing in that, not just individual authors), shouldn't they self-contain their context to the level that they are comprehensible? note, i'm not talking about spin - that doesn't belong. but if basic comprehension of the paper requires reading secondary sources, isn't that a fundamental problem in how scientific papers are written? (i'm asking this as a person with a phd and post-doc, working as a data scientist now but i have read many many scientific papers). I'll note - older papers (1960's, 1970's, etc.), do seem to include more color and more explanation. some modern papers do too. but many are dry and kind of incomprehensible.

I feel that the Business Insider title is really misleading and counterproductive; because Derek Muller is not 'a youtuber' -- he's a serious physics educator, with a PhD in physics education research, and with probably the best youtube channel (or any channel, in any medium) in the world for explaining physics content; which has been running for a decade; and with nods from multiple famous physicists IN THIS VERY VIDEO saying that he is the best that there is. So the claim that 'A youtuber bet a physicist and won' just makes it seem that experts are wrong, whereas in reality, this was expert vs. expert. That being said, physics is such that if 'some youtuber' bet a physicist, and was right... physicists would concede.