glimshe

Keep in mind that the US has never joined the ICC. China, Russia, India and, in fact, a large portion of the world (including the Arab world) aren't part of it.

The ICC, irrespective of its merits, represents a somewhat narrow point of view.

Yet it had remained unsolved until OpenAI's effort...

Without them, I would have simply bailed out early like used to be the case with many games back in the day... I never use "spoilers" if I'm having fun. It's usually when I say "well, let me at least finish this to see the ending".

Roughly zero.

Not only you're making huge assumptions on AI's ability to build software useable by non-software engineers without professional input, you're also underestimating people's desire to pay just for convenience ("gee, I need a diet tracker, let me find a few people to help me vibe code it instead of paying $10")

Reliability, yes. UX, no.

If you look at MacOS with a critical eye, it's nearly impossible to say it has good UX. It's outdated and everything requires more clicks. Finder stuck 20 years ago. Hard to find settings. Poor screen real estate. Hard to read text with transparent everything.

Let's kill this myth that "Macs are more intuitive to use".

I think a better approach would be to use the objective built-in feedback, like the thumbs up button in Gemini.

I never understood why people like Grim Fandango so much. I know many people who absolutely love it (and some more here on the replies) but I never did.

I've finished it with a walkthrough so I've seen the entire game. Between an art style that didn't age well and didn't grab me even then, obscure puzzles and a theme that doesn't interest me so much, I think it is one of LucasArts worst adventure games. But that's me. Let's call it "polarizing".

I thought it was an error message but I can't tell from my phone using Brave.

I appreciate you took the time to answer my post. Since you like honesty, let me say that I think your framework isn't terribly useful and, for most people, somewhat condescending coming from people in a leadership capacity. There's nothing wrong with your advice, but it's kind of generic and childish, like "in order to think, you have to think" with a hint of "move fast" corporate drivel.

I've worked in this culture. I was an IC, tech lead, lower and upper management in medium to large AAA tech companies, household names, that had the same sort of feedback focus.

I think the all-in feedback culture is overall a net negative because it invites this kind of micro-criticism, rules-driven feedback sharing.

Given that, all I can say is that while you're appear to be well intentioned, I would at most share your framework once or twice and stop pushing it, assuming you're doing that (it sounded like it). I can see most people being annoyed but this kind of framework and that's why my reply was so upvoted.

That's totally cool - it's just not what I think of doing when I want to play. Spending months building the studio feels l more like a hobby within a hobby (or a job within the job).

Nothing more annoying than a manager with a personal know-it-all framework requiring people to follow it or else they get "feedback".

I agree, but it's still something we shouldn't eliminate a priori. I think Mathematics as a profession will be greatly enhanced by AI, but I can't prove that.

Despite loving Mathematics and having considered being a Mathematician myself, that wasn't a very robust defense. Also, even though I'm a big Terence Tao fan, I'm not sure he has sorted that out this defense in full himself.

This post which he forwarded was quite poor in my opinion. Confusing, all over the place with AI criticisms and promotion of the AI hazing being done by mathematicians.

X thousand mathematicians who want to protect their livelihoods signed a bunch of letters against AI. Duh. We've seen similar movements from every profession that has been displaced ever.

Terence Tao uses AI and has made a few good points on how to use it. But defensiveness leaks into almost every defense of the role of humans in Mathematics that I've read, even his own at times.

To be clear, I actually believe that Mathematicians aren't going away, but I dont have enough knowledge about the life of a professional mathematician to articulate a path forward.

This "path forward" is what I'd like to see. We need a top mathematician with enough intellectual honesty (Terence Tao qualifies, I think) to start this questioning with "there's actually no role for human Mathematicians" as one of the options on the table and go from there.

I got a 4.9 and my wife got a 9.2. I should consider myself lucky! Or maybe it's because hot gals are attracted to guys who can code in C++.

Modular synths are very cool, but it's a bit like a swimming pool: it's great when someone close to you deals with the grind so you can just enjoy it.

I talked myself out investing in modulars because I know I'll never have the patience to deal with the wires when all I want is to play. Big respect for those who can do it!

Many people here most certainly are (not the majority though).

I'll answer one of your points partially: if AI builds a better sorting algorithm and proves its performance characteristics, it's useful. I'd be able to use it to make my programs faster even if I don't/couldn't understand it.

It would be a bit disappointing but still useful and make humanity slightly better.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we had two competing mathematical institutes, a sort of First/Second Foundations:

1) Rejection of AI for anything but trivial applications while still using computers at their full capacity. Researchers would ensure full human understanding of proofs and methods. This Institute believes on Math as a process of discovery, Mathematicians as explorers/poets/storytellers and not proof machines.

2) Unrestricted, all-embracing use of the latest AI, including potentially research in creating even better AIs as part of the program. These researchers would be okay with not understanding proofs if verified to be correct. This group is focused on rapid problem resolution and believes Mathematicians are theorem creators and provers.

After X years (100?), which one would advance Mathematics and humanity the most (we'd need to define "advance")?

It's self explanatory. People are very interested in it. Every new computing Wave comes with months or years of non-stop articles here. I remember when Twitter was released, people wouldn't talk about anything else for a while.

Both. Neither is a viable mass-market alternative in my opinion. Cross-platform office software is just a difficult problem. I think they could be appropriate for some nonprofit/government work, which I think is where they do well today.

I think LibreOffice is an outdated and overall awful piece of software. It's not like Open Source champions like Linux, Blender and Godot at all.

Its only advantage is being Free. This product couldn't survive in the market if it was paid, arguably at any price. I really tried it to use and love it, but LibreOffice is just terrible.

This isn't necessarily true. There may be proofs so complex, they could exceed the limit of human cognition.

There's nothing that will save your employment time because any employer will want to maximize what they get from you. This applies to literally any innovation past, present and future.

For self-employed people, it allows them to focus on other problems. I know people who would be bankrupt without AI now because development time was crushing their company and they couldn't afford to hire others. Now they can spend more time in marketing and sales. AI will make some business that weren't profitable in the past viable.

For people who program for leisure, self-consumption or otherwise don't have a major income pressure, it is objectively a huge time saver.

People will eventually realize that this is exactly what AI does for most workflows. The propaganda is "synthetic humans", "obsolete mathematicians" and so forth, but what we will likely see is a fantastic time saver for things we didn't like to do to begin with.

How does AI's mathematical abilities affect the commercial future of software like Mathematica?

Product idea: a LLM trained separately from mainline LLMs that anticipate market trends by analyzing how mainline LLMs will invest. As retail investors will probably use mainline AI for decisions going forward , one could get an edge.

"The AI-driven Market Hypothesis"

Please let me know where I should pick up my Nobel prize.

Complaining about the "LLM voice" is a bit like complaining about the compiler error "voice". I configure my coding LLMs to get to the point and be succinct.

It's a computer giving me information, so as long as the communication is clear and efficient, who cares about particular word choices?

If you knew what "exponentially" means, you probably wouldn't be saying that.

It happens with any Chromium based browser, like Edge. Apple and Chromium keeps pointing fingers at each other, but the reality is that this only happens on Apple machines. Windows and Linux have no such problem.

There's a great movie or Streaming series on this post somewhere.

Sometimes people can be too smart for their own good. Like a frontier model in an eternal hallucination loop, you can create entire seemingly consistent realities in your head and end up bringing others into it.