noslenwerdna

That is also not how it works. The theorem says that there exist some true statements for which there is no proof. This is assuming the axioms are consistent.

I think we should be horrified/outraged that calculators exist and are clear cutting the once viable field of human calculation.

Yes, I am being sarcastic.

I think we shouldn't have calculators anymore either. The world was better when we had to calculate everything by hand and a human by hand verified every single addition and subtraction.

Is it a hallucination machine and a stochastic parrot or is it so powerful we need it to be controlled like nuclear weaponry

Genuinely curious, where have you been reading that? How would they be able to evaluate whether the sandboxes were reasonable or not?

"To selflessly further the total sum of knowledge?"

Yes. I think you are saying this sarcastically but I'm not sure... This is why you should get involved in research at the frontier.

"What field? Who’s leaving?"

Mathematics, and I'd extend it to other academic disciplines. Do you care more about the results and the knowledge or about who gets credit?

The drive for "glory" has many negative effects in academia that do not get enough recognition. Just look at the replication crisis in psychology for an example. The fact p-hacking was rampant among psychology "researchers" was well known even in the 90s. I remember my professors in grad school for physics joking about it way before it became a mainstream-ish story.

So why did this happen? Because there was no one with institutional power in psychology who both understood the problem and cared. No one who was interested in the furthering the "total sum of knowledge" rather they were interested in your "glory."

Good? Those people were in the field for the wrong reasons. No reason to mourn them leaving

This seems like an unserious experiment from the premise, but it could be interesting. But has this effect been replicated?

I mean there were problems with the "old way" as well. Not clear if this change is net positive or negative in my opinion.

The difference is that white collar as a class gleefully aided outsourcing/automating blue collar jobs with the exact same economic argument

Automation is only good if you're putting blue collar people out of work! White-collar is out of bounds! People should do the work where they add unique value

Is the purpose of a system really what it does though? Obviously there are side effects and tradeoffs in any complex system. Is the purpose of a vaccine to make you sick - no, but that is a side effect of some vaccines on some people.

If we apply the "purpose of a system is what it does" to itself, this methodology is more a way to generate interesting (and cynical) hypotheses than to get at the truth.

Obviously I mean the definition of evil implied by your statement that they are indefensibly evil...

Again, what level of copyright violation is evil? Downloading music without paying for it? Apparently using images/text that artists have made public is evil, so I'm curious what the bar is here for evil.

Using electricity to improve white collar efficiency is also evil. Good to know

This is a very close minded definition of evil. What is the threshold of environmental impact before something is evil and its use indefensible?

What level of copyright violation will send us to hell?

There's definitely going to be cheap or open source models