QuesnayJr

The first time I saw the red squiggles is one of the few times I thought "Good job, Microsoft".

Someone said to me yesterday "I'm thinking about building my own cyberdeck" and I boggled, because the only meaning I knew was the Neuromancer one.

GA is Clifford algebra plus a bunch of new terminology plus advocacy that it should replace linear algebra.

FWIW, I liked the way you expressed it through a dichotomy.

Isn't that a straightforward argument for preserving the status quo as much as possible in learning? We know how to get people to learn without AI, so we should keep doing it until someone figures out how to use AI effectively.

Dude, just use it to learn something. It's obviously true.

Everyone uses AI all the time now. People's impressions are not mediated by marketing.

This is not at all what happened. They did deliver, in the form of the "Attention Is All You Need" paper, which Google made public. They took nothing from Google that wasn't already public.

Unless you think that employees are like indentured servants, and Novo Nordisk owns not only Wegovy but the people who work on it.

Switzerland has nuclear reactors. They just stopped building new ones.

Semiclassical gravity is the best we can currently do for a theory of gravity without invoking speculative ideas that are currently untestable. If the paper holds up (I haven't read it), then there are several possibilities:

1. Maybe P = NP, and semiclassical gravity isn't special. 2. Maybe P = NP, and the way we'll prove it is finding an efficient way to simulate semiclassical gravity. 3. P = NP is a hypothesis about traditional theories of computation, but they don't rule out that we can build a special machine that solves them. There's a stronger hypothesis, the extended Church-Turing thesis (ECTT), that says this is impossible. Maybe the extended Church-Turing thesis is wrong, and this is how we'll show it. 4. If ECTT thesis is right, then maybe we can conduct an experiment where semiclassical gravity fails. This gives us a clue to new physics. 5. If we can't eventually conduct an experiment, then at least we learn about a new angle on complexity -- problems that can be efficiently solved this way but not by a deterministic Turing machine.

Both quantum mechanics and general relativity are thought to satisfy the ECTT, so the fact that our most experimentally successful combination of the two doesn't is of some interest. (Semiclassical gravity is thought to fail eventually, but in a way that's out of reach of current experiments.)

Half the countries in Europe has their own Trump-equivalent politician heading one of the largest parties, and yet Europeans are imagining it's something happening "in the US" while they sleepwalk into disaster.

Lisp had a package for that, DWIM, in the late 60s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DWIM.

You're not understanding my point. The scientific evidence is that birds are descended from dinosaurs. Scientific evidence can't make birds be dinosaurs, because it's up to us to define "bird" and "dinosaur", and we can define "bird" to exclude dinosaur (and I think most people still do). Just like we can define "fish" and "human", and we can define "fish" to exclude human, even though some fish learned how to walk on land and one of their grandkids is typing this comment right now. Biologists might wish that we all adopt cladistic definitions for types of organisms, but that doesn't the world will follow.

We don't "know" that, because that's not a category of thing we can know or not know. It's a matter of semantics of whether we consider birds dinosaurs, just like it's a matter of semantics of whether we consider people a kind of fish.

The idea that birds are descended from dinosaurs is nearly as old as evolution itself, first being proposed by Thomas Huxley in 1868 (Origin of the Species dates from 1859).

The only reason there was a competing evolutionary theory is because it was erroneously thought that birds have a clavicle and dinosaurs don't, so instead it was proposed that birds and dinosaurs have a common ancestor, and that dinosaurs lost the clavicle. Now that they have excavated many more bones paleontologists have since discovered therapod clavicles.

"the" is connected to "stack", not "LangChain". "LangChain" is a adjective that modifies stack.

Cutting it off at "the LangChain" is like if I took the first sentence of your edit and said "look, I think the general" ?? You think the general?

AI tends towards regurgitating conventional wisdom. I suspect if it was written using AI it required some bullying to get it to go alone.

Just shutting it down seems like the worst way to keep the customers. They'd be better off rebranding it as Salesforce Clockwise and then slowly transitioning them.

I suspect it's more of an acquihire.

It's striking how cybernetics has gone from dated to timely.

The level of AI use you're describing isn't what people are complaining about (and probably don't even notice). Fixing grammar and occasional word order change isn't going to make your entire article sound like insincere bullshit.

I would genuinely rather read this than read an AI-generated piece. AI-generated articles read like they are trying to sell me on their scam crypto meme coin.

What's most impressive about it is that it uses a system, Megaladon, which is pretty obscure. There isn't that much documentation or examples, but it can still formalize an advanced undergraduate textbook.

I read it the other way. Here's the quote from the article:

On December 7, 1873, he wrote to Dedekind that he thought he’d finally succeeded: “But if I should be deceiving myself, I should certainly find no more indulgent judge than you.” He laid out his proof. But it was unwieldy, convoluted. Dedekind replied with a way to simplify Cantor’s proof, building a clearer argument without losing any rigor or accuracy. Meanwhile Cantor, before he’d received Dedekind’s letter, sent him a similar idea for how to streamline the proof, though he hadn’t worked out the details the way Dedekind had.

From the article it's hard to tell if Cantor really did plagiarize (though it seems Dedekind thought he did).

According to the article, Cantor proved the theorem first and sent it to Dedekind. Dedekind suggested a simplification of the proof, which Cantor used when he wrote it up. The story doesn't make Cantor look good, but if the original proof by Cantor is correct, then the credit for the theorem still basically belongs to Cantor.

Are you citing your own book?

Because the Church didn't even have a good theological reason for siding against Galileo. It was a fit of pique.

But people have so completely internalized the idea that truth must bow to power that they think the fact that the Church condemned Galileo's ideas because he was rude somehow exonerates it as an institution.

Galileo is a noble scientist going against a Pope who had his fee-fees hurt, which then banned the truth. It doesn't make the Church any less backward.

It amazes me that people think this version of events makes the Church sound better, when it makes it sound worse.

I was wondering what this meant, so I googled '"rho type" concatenative', and the only hit was this thread.

I asked on LM Arena. I got two models I never heard of, and they split on whether I should walk or drive. Ernie 5.0 said I should walk, and then trash talked me for thinking about driving. Octopodus pointed out I had to drive to get my car to the car wash.

Erdos was an incredibly prolific mathematician, and one of his quirks is that he liked to collect open problems and state new open problems as a challenge to the field. Many of the problems he attached bounties to, from $5 to $10,000.

The problems are a pretty good metric for AI, because the easiest ones at least meet the bar of "a top mathematician didn't know how to solve this off the top of his head" and the hardest ones are major open problems. As AI progresses, we will see it slowly climb the difficulty ladder.