Almondsetat

Is the ?4th a date?

Solving a theorem is like climbing a new mountain. The mountain is already there, and there is a list of the hardest known mountains to climb. The point of climbing them and not just dropping with a plane on top of the peak is to help develop human climbing skills and expand our knowledge and abilities. Also, already conquered mountains are climbed all the time to test new strategies.

Now, if an LLM proves a theorem, it's like discovering a new mountain and knowing what its peak looks like. Does that mean the problem is finished? No, we still need climbers to actually do the work and advance the field with human understanding.

Go and Rust have much worse tooling for enterprise-level collaboration

"google.com/goto considered harmful"

Probably something about integrating access control to a repository so a deparment has the source for a certain library, while the others only see the header files and compiled objects to use?

I have found these models to be useful either at super specific tasks (e.g., "take this function or algorith?m and find any black magic to make ot faster + validate and verify the hell oit of it"), or give it an entire thing to oneshot without oversight. The moment you have a hybrid workflow where you actually have to work and check and understand AI code, things get insane

There are also plenty of things a compiler might not expose that end up being ambiguous. For example, C++ doesn't officially have a restrict keyword, so how can you express the fact that two memory regions never operlap and can be optimized? Unfortunately the reality is that if we had a language capable of truly expressing the programmer's intent we'd end up with a monster

>For the past year, Buckmaster and Alpöge had been using a variety of AI tools, including OpenAI’s Codex, to tackle the Navier-Stokes problem. Last month, their AIs had at long last found a solution to the Euler equations and verified it in Lean.

Their AIs?

Any torrents to keep it alive?

The surface of bugs in Lean is infinitely smaller than the human error involeved in a committee of peer reviewers. It's way more probable to say "it's proven because Lean says so" than "it's proven because a couple of reviewers said so".

Also, if a bug is found, all previosuly proven theorems can be reproven to immediately and conclusively find out if things went wrong somewhere

and you are entitled to talk about maths while rejecting maths

A quick google search shows different proof assistants have been used to obtain the Peano axioms from ZFC, such as Isabelle/ZF and Metamath. I think you're just wrong

why should they be obvious? they are derived and have been thoroughly proven.

Godel proved that any system expressive enough to produce an arithmetic is incomplete. He initially proved it for the peano axioms but then it got generalized. ZFC can produce an arithmetic. Also, before being arrogant and demanding explanations, you should give them first for your claims

If you start with "I'm not a strong expert" maybe you should stop continuing saying wrong stuff. What you just wrote is completely wrong.

Which quantization?

Since you made no effort to point out the supposed oxymoron: no.

I don't understand the point of your question. The "problem" of an ex-employee consciously or subconsciously bringing his learned experiences at your company to a competitor is literally the reason why non-competes exist. In fact, this topic is quite old.

I swear I see this exact kind of project every year under a new name

>Suppose your function doodle_widget is supposed to take a Gonzo Widget, but you're worried somebody might call it with a Non-Gonzo Widget and that can't work.

Can't you just use concepts?

Because most AI generated websites are from people who don't know much and as such cannot even articulate the look they want

As would be running critical software certified for Windows on ReactOS as envisioned by GP. So, either we talk about an enterprise setting, in which GP already fucked up, or a more personal setting, in which both whaat GP and I said are reasonable

You completely stripped what I said from its context. GP explicitely said they donate to ReactOS in the hopes of one day being able to run that industrial software on it instead of on Windows. In this context, running the software on ReactOS instead of official Windows would already fail your hypothetical inspections. This is why I suggested trying the LLM route.

Reverse engineering is protected under certain conditions, even if the EULA prohibits it

Why not spend some money on an uncensored LLM to reverse engineer or create an open clean room reimplementation?

Is this a bot reply?

Since the announcement is, frustratingly, low on details, did they implement the usual hue vs hue, hue vs sat, etc. controls? I don't do much color grading but my line of work requires using multiple cameras, thus I enjoy using a color chart to match the video clips. With a vectorscope and with the color chart I could quickly do basically everthing I need with this software instead of relying in Resolve, if only it offered those controls

Who said openclaw cannot install radarr and operate it?

"hey computer, i want to watch a movie on my jellyfin server tonight, get it done" and openclaw autonomously finds the torrent, downloads it, moves it to the NAS, and you sit down at the end of the day with everhything set up

P2P communication is also a feature, which an entire class of applications would love to make use of. Instead, we need to spawn (and PAY for) TURN and STUN servers