Wolfram Notebook Assistant
writings.stephenwolfram.com
writings.stephenwolfram.com
I do have a personal copy and I definitely do open it up when I really want to solve a hard mathematical problem quickly. Then I translate it after the fact to whatever corporate language I was supposed to solve it with.
... for a significant slice of professional and hobbyist use cases, and there are no alternatives AFAICT!
I also have a Mathematica license which I think is worth paying for. One of the few closed software that has no good equivalent in the libre world. Nonetheless, I wish Wolfram had come up with a different business model that made Mathematica more mainstream, as I feel it has not realized its potential in certain areas.
And even in the symbolic math niche, I am afraid that Python and Julia will slowly erode its market-share.
Are they forcing you to use it?
Or do you expect them to run expensive GOUs for you for free?
Are you actually using wa? Because if it's helpful as an assistant and it only costs 26 Dollar, shouldn't you be happy about this?
Subscription models don’t mesh well with casual users. However, if it’s going to save you hours of work every month then it’s a perfectly reasonable price point.
Any alternative where you pay $10 for $15 value or you pay $100 for $150 value will beat this
Personally no, 50$/month of value covers not just 30$/month, but also the overhead of yet another subscription.
So paying 10 for 15 doesn’t make much sense IMO, but $100 for $150 does.
(Wolfram customer since 1988 too, so I think it’s helpful to change units, in this cost evaluation!)
I get it that "single user at single computer" is the majority of use cases, so I'm not asking for accommodation. But for me, free means free site license, and I do like to have my tools installed on every computer that I touch.
Sure, there are work-arounds, but it's hard to keep using the proprietary stuff when the free stuff is so easy to deal with.
Disclosure: Wolfram user from 1993 to 1997. Also, when colleagues want to use proprietary software tools, I always go to bat for them, to get the expense approved, because I believe that people should have a choice.
English -- (LLM) --> python
Human fine tunes python
Python -- (py2many) --> smt2 --> z3 --> result
Perhaps some steps can be eliminated in the future.
You could have a puzzle that's described in plain English. I think the current day tech is sufficient to translate the puzzle to a python constraint like in this gist.
The argument is that the SMT solvers are a better match for solving these problems than expensive matrix multiplication paid for by someone else.
Of course, SMT is not a solution for every situation that Wolfram language is used for today. But a lot of the reasoning benchmarks fall in this category.
https://blog.wolfram.com/2021/11/04/lessons-learned-migratin...
The linked tweet (https://x.com/WolframResearch/status/1325935891651698690?s=2...) is inaccessible. Does anyone have an archive?
I'd love to see pandas/df compared instead of the iterative style.
Now the view from someone who quit Mathematica walled garden to embrace the Python ecosystem (2018): https://paulromer.net/jupyter-mathematica-and-the-future-of-...
Perhaps there are cases where DSL is the right answer. Not sure if this is one though.
I see some parallels to the arguments around using a ML derived language instead of adding types to python3 and giving it 90% of the capabilities.
There are other factors like: open vs closed development model, number of implementations (Wolfram language has exactly 1?) etc.
From my perspective, the problem to solve is that the python ecosystem isn't even trying. Would love to see stats about the adoption of the match statement introduced 3 yrs ago.