glitchc

Life on the moon is likely to develop in much the same way that humans settled in far-flung places on Earth. The first people to arrive and live on the moon will be there for a work-related reason (research, military posting, etc.). Those people will settle down, have families and form a community. Over time, the communities will grow and evolve into a distinct Moon culture and society.

The only new variable in the last century of humanity is birth control. All others (hypergamy, economic mobility, migration, etc.) are recurring and have not impacted birth rates significantly in the past.

> There are airliners that have been in service for over 50 years.

...with a very aggressive maintenance cycle (typical part life is 1000-10000 hrs of service). Most airliners of that vintage resemble the "Ship of Theseus" in real life.

These appear to be sociology topics more so than computer science. HCI started as a field for how humans directly interact with machines (ex. new pointing devices). I guess scope has creeped substantially since then.

Using homomorphic encryption to protect your data is the way forward:

https://blog.google/security/how-google-is-making-private-ai...

Indeed, reality has a conservative bias. Liberals co-opted the phrase for their own social engineering ends.

Thanks for you concern, I typed that message out by hand and genuinely meant it. The terseness stems from the use of a mobile phone, not Claude. As it happens, I don't have an Anthropic account, nor do I possess an OpenAI one. If you look at my comment history, you'll notice I've been around for a while (as I noticed, have you).

Thank you, I've been looking for a meaningful way to browse HN on my cyberdeck and this looks perfect.

I for one thank you for your insider view. It makes HN comments worth reading.

A calculator, Youtube and iPad tried to replace teachers. They all failed but this time it's different.

Basing a pattern on outliers is not a successful strategy. It has to have reasonable success rate for the average person to risk it.

Sounds like there are too many white collar employees and not enough white collar jobs. The market can pick and choose, wait for the perfect candidate to pop up.

> But a lot of humans don’t want to step on others’ toes or be perceived as acting out of line.

It's conditioning. In all organizations above a certain size (> 100 people), stepping out of line receives an official reprimand. Someone always complains. Receive enough reprimands and the person is terminated. People learn to stay in line because they've been punished whenever they step out of it.

In most cases, they are only useful to other scientists in their field, which does mean that they are useless to the general person until they show up in the form of a new commodity.

I'm sold on "personal cyberarms" as a concept

Do they include footguns from pointer bugs?

Others have chimed in on cost and size, I'll chime in on power. The 8x 5090s will require a dedicated datacentre grade power source. The Mac Studio runs on a plain jane wall socket.

This guy doesn't think deeply about any problem, possibly because he has never had to and probably because he has never wanted to. He would probably make a good residential plumber.

It seems unfair to conflate the rationalism of Berkeley, Locke, Russell and Hitchens who hold critical thinking in the highest regard, to AI maximalists, who seem to be using rationalidm mainly as a cover for their own pet ideas on social reengineering.

The former is mainly about being true to the scientific process of evidence-led discovery, while the latter is... whatever it is (but rational it is not). From a critical thinking perspective, there is no evidence to suggest the current form of AI could achieve superintelligence, and mechanisms that could enable ASI have not been discovered yet. Their perspective, on the other hand, is far more activist.

Feeling the burn?

I'm not fully convinced that human beings aren't stochastic parrots. Much of the behaviour I observe in daily life reflects a blind adherence to set of beliefs that are an amalgation of "a person of authority said to do this" at an early age.

> Writing a well understood engine for a super popular problem does not count as reasoning about the problem.

Doesn't writing the engine imply understanding about the problem domain? Tool use is a widely accepted measure of intelligence.

Why not ask it to implement a chess engine first, and then use that to play against you?

Does the LLM need to learn to play chess if it can build a chess engine to play for it instead?

Yup, the RAM was the main bottleneck. 8MB was the minimum for Win9x, 16MB and above led to a fast experience.

That sounds shockingly like cognitive dissonance. So what would previously be a good thesis if produced by a student over 4-6 years is suddenly now a bad result because it was produced by AI in a few weeks. One would think mathematicians would not fall into such a simple trap but here we are.

I understand the perspective: The journey of a PhD thesis is a learning experience greatly beneficial to the student. Yet that journey is funded by society (esp. for domestic students) and society benefits from the results. The average person benefits when progress is made.

> One of the points I clearly remember him saying that having AI be able to solve many of the open problems, regardless of how important there are (there are many open problems that are not that important) greatly reduces the problem space for mathematics students to give new problems to work on.

The crux of the argument perhaps. It suggests that too many people are currently studying mathematics without making much progress.

Engineers are needed to build real things. AI isn't there yet.

> The issue of credit is a relatively minor point in the declaration.

What a load of croc. This entire debate is fueled by a perceived lack of attribution. The AI learnt from researchers and did not give them a sporting chance of being first before scooping them. They were expecting some sort of fair play, instead they got a ruthless machine. Every other tangent to this debate is irrelevant, the culture, the community, the shared symbolic growth. Every mathematician I know is secretly trying to one-up their peers.

> He doesn't see value in scrolling through unsolved problems asking an AI to please solve them.

Yet that's exactly how the field works. A new grad student is tasked with finding a suitably difficult problem from a list of unsolved problems. The sweet spot is obscure, so that fewer people are working on it, but not too obscure that no one knows about it. It works the same way in theoretical physics and theoretical Comp Sci, and I speak from insider knowledge. The rosy view of mathematicians in the media is largely a product of marketing.

You seem to be unfamiliar about how research works. It's common to make an incremental advancement while citing prior work. The vast majority of papers out there fall into this bucket. Did the AI make incremental progress? Yes. Did it cite prior art? After some nudging, yes.

It seems to me the academics are upset that AI scooped them. But scooping is a time-honored tradition between researchers. First to print and all that. In a nutshell, they are upset that they lost out on a publication.

I will also point out for those unaware that any mathematics that is produced is automatically part of the public domain and can be used freely in derivative works. It is not a protected intellectual class like other works of art.

Beautifully written post and true on many levels. The art of software stopped being an art once large amounts of capital started creeping in. There are no signs that we're returning to sanity any time soon.