hanibrel

I think you are missing the point of the main criticism. It is not about not wanting results in terms of proofs.

New theories and insights are typically created while working out proofs. If proofs now suddenly fall out of the sky (cause LLMs create them) then that work is not done which means the substrate on which new theories and questions and conjectures used to be grown disappears. It's in that sense that the math community (and thereby society as a whole) will lose something.

It's similar to how software engineering will need to find a solution to train their next generation. Current generations have all been through manual steps of designing things from scratch and writing them by hand. That's what allows your 10x engineers to understand whether what their LLM tools are doing is good and how to massage those tools to do the right thing. A junior engineer who has only ever used LLMs to write code and create architectures does not just not have that experience but also won't acquire it. You can't just say "we don't pay them to have fun and learn, we pay them to produce results". In the short term that is the case, but in the long term you as a company and we as a community will lose out.

I'm not saying don't use AI tooling. I'm saying that this is a hard problem which we yet to have to find solutions and approaches to. As a software community as well as as society in general.

But not necessarily in a good way. This introduces a bias into the users prompt which is not there without the suggestion. So, arguably, this feature makes the users inputs less useful for training because they are partially impacted by model output.

This is similar to blog articles since 2023 or so onwards being less useful for model training since more and more of them are based on LLM output to varying degrees.

Go a step further and randomize it. Different page at every request.

> In person, pure paper voting, in local community halls etc, run by volunteers is the best voting system.

Unless those volunteers are all die-hard fans of a particular party/candidate and thereby intimidating everybody that has a different opinion. (Not openly of course, but if everybody knows everybody, the mere presence suffices to sway people.)

Any book recommendation from William Cleveland on the subject?

There should be a similar metric for information density in an article. This one is so repetitive that it's hard to keep reading since the whole point was already contained in the first section. The rest keeps just repeating again and again. Too bad the slop density is off the charts on this one.

I know plenty of overweight chefs.

And I also know plenty of ripped folks who hardly ever cook. Granted, they don't only eat fast food, but quite a lot of it.

Classifying burnout as a dismissive term is a problem in and of itself. It's a real thing, but I also understand that people who have never experienced it can have a hard time taking it seriously and would be tempted to dismiss it. To be honest, I was one of them, until it happened to me a few years ago. It took me 5 months to recover and be able to go back to work. Since then, everybody in those shoes gets my support.

> Five to ten minutes a few times a week, and I've not had a back problem in years.

It helps, no doubt.

But it's not bullet proof either. A buddy of mine, very active guy, runner, cyclist, rower, tennis, swimmer, works out 10x a week, hikes 2 weeks in the rockies every summer. If anybody knows about warmup and stretching and all that, it's him. Has been a programmer for 20 years. Herniated disc took him out a year ago, still recovering.

> Still, people got hurt doing it, especially over a lifetime of labor.

The number of programmers I know with back issues like herniated discs is larger than those without. It's a different risk, no doubt, but it's real nevertheless.