woopwoop

I really don't understand this. Mathematics was and still is the most open intellectual discipline. There was more good work from unknown people recognized than anywhere else. It's one of the reasons all this was possible: there were objective standards that could not be waved away, so when ML models achieved things it couldn't be denied.

This is the first machine generated text I have seen that I would call genuinely hilarious. A little eerie

I am a former mathematician now working a regular job (not affiliated with OpenAI). Just speaking for myself, I find this statement deeply embarrassing and at odds with the spirit of open inquiry for which the community of mathematics has (nearly) always been a standard bearer.

> Second, while the percentage of students identified was substantial, it was still less than 50%.

No doubt the student body will learn this lesson, and in the future the number of students identified as having cheated will be near zero.

What do you think the word virulence means?

The author seems to be arguing that it is biologically impossible or something to have a virus with the same transmission properties as COVID but higher virulence. I don't understand what principle he is invoking to make this claim.

I'm like the Japanese soldier who kept fighting into the 1970s on this, but actually signalling is about taking costly action. When people call something virtue signalling what they usually mean is that it's cheap talk, but this is wrong. The whole point of signalling is that it's costly. A more correct application of virtue signalling would be something like those people who contort their lives to genuinely try to produce zero garbage. This is a truly costly action, but it is signalling in the sense that it is more about showing that one cares by being effortful than actually doing something effectual.

I have a graduate degree in mathematics. AI models can absolutely help you do research math in 2026. I recently asked chatGPT to prove a result which I know to have been published in Advances in Mathematics (a pretty good, but not top tier, journal) this year, and it gave a correct proof which was completely distinct from the one that was published.

I got my mortgage at 2.5% interest. The mortgage was about equal to all of the cash I had before buying, and I'm pretty sure I could (and should) have gotten a much larger mortgage before buying. Mortgages are essentially the only way for ordinary people to access that kind of credit. That's why buying a house is such a good deal. No one's lending an ordinary 30-year-old hundreds of thousands of dollars at 2.5% interest to plow into the S&P 500.

Of course, this kind of credit is _incredibly_ risky. People don't think of it this way, but a mortgage is essentially a massively leveraged bet on your local housing market. Which is already gives your risk profile an incredible lack of diversity. The most valuable thing you "own" in the time of your life when you buy a house is usually your future earnings potential, and your house will be the second most valuable thing you own. The thing is, both of these things are highly correlated with your local economy, so buying a house doubles down on your already high exposure to local economic conditions. People think of owning a home as a kind of boring, safe, low risk/low reward investment, but it's really exactly the opposite.

That's not a nit. There's not much left of the articles point once you take this on board.

But Houston Street is older than Sam Houston, and was always pronounced that way.

Machine generated text.