> Sure, mathematical history features a lot of incredible developments, like the invention of proof, zero, or the computer, and on the great problems our progress has been over timelines measured in decades or centuries. Obviously this technology didn’t appear today, but blurring our eyes a bit to combine the past ten years, with today a measurement of those developments, there is nothing comparable.
They certainly arent going to give you that cure for cancer, if it were to ever come.
Or else how do you explain Danyelza? Used to treat neuroblastoma, costs upwards of $1m per year. Do you have any proof that this will be different?
You're calling realistic people conspiracy theorists. Whose side are you on?
Yes, I actually work in the medical industry. There is no hiding the cure for cancer.
> Or else how do you explain Danyelza? Used to treat neuroblastoma, costs upwards of $1m per year. Do you have any proof that this will be different?
Oh, you are American. Let me tell you a secret: the problems of your healthcare insurance system are not a worldwide phenomenon, nor an immutable fact of this universe. Perhaps the cure for cancer, if expensive, will not be easily available to the poorest Americans, at least initially (the cost will come down sooner or later). But that is a very different claim from "they'd never give it to you".
There's no need to hide anything, it's just pay-walled (and it's not an hypothesis, most human beings on this planets cannot afford the SotA treatments for their cancer today).
I'm also against absolutely anyone who asks me "whose side I'm on" as part of an argument.
Conspiracy bullshit. You cannot keep something like an effective cure for cancer under wraps. There is no plausible logic how that would not leak sooner or later.
All of this means you will need to be rich or have your country invest lots of money into health care systems. In a world where humans don't provide economic value anymore, why would that be?
They exist, I assure you!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_we...
There are real safety concerns with AI that can be made very convincingly though.
I feel something about human nature makes us treat joy of discovery, status, etc. as a source of energy and motivation. I hope we'll find other ways to keep some "strategic intellectual reserve" of mathematicians alive.
This happened to software engineers already. Mathematics isn't special.
That said the software folks can teach the math folks a thing or two when it comes to dealing with grief I am sure.
For what? So some guys can be richer and more powerful. What could possibly be more important than themselves? You? Your future? We're nothing, and have been told to be excited and curious about our coming obsolescence and powerlessness.
Did that actually happen? The emails that were originally released had OpenAI refusing to list him as a coauthor on OpenAI's paper but they suggested he should release what he already had done ahead of OpenAI's release. There was certainly nothing to suggest he should be robbed of credit for his own work.
Has anything new come to light since, or is this just another game of Chinese whispers?
They refused to put him as a coauthor; which is… standard practice, because he wasn’t a coauthor.