A lot of the comments are claiming that "no one is forcing them to engage with AI proofs" and that's not the case, as explained in the article. The author is forced to engage with the public by the very nature of being a prominent researcher on this problem. The public is drowning him in messages regarding this result. So yes, he is being forced.
Academics have always been required to engage with hacks and cranks to some extent; the deluge of AI proof writing has only exacerbated the problem.
Did you... Enjoy software development beforehand? Like there is a huge chunk of people that really enjoyed writing software and are bummed that that part of their job is being subsumed by models.
The same could go for mathematics or any field; there are lots of people who enjoy the process and aren't satisfied by being handed and opaque final result
I mean 95% of a proof is not a proof, and the fact that we got 95% of the way there isn't necessarily an indication that we'll ever get there. There's also a big difference between publishing a mostly-done proof as such and publishing a proof as complete only to retract later.
There's a lot to hate about the academic world, but the solution isn't spewing out terabytes of crappy half-baked results.
It's wild to me that no matter how many community-based tools are destroyed this way, this keeps happening. I understand that running servers isn't free, but there are plenty of ways to pay for infrastructure that don't destroy core community engagement.
Do you have a concrete example of a high SNR researcher who will be limited by this policy? Aka one who is submitting more than two high quality papers per month?
I'm interested in reading more information as it comes out, but a lot of the comments claiming it's "just vibrations" are being a bit reductionist. These devices are controlled by complex algorithms, and they take a lot of time and money to create. Why shouldn't this company enjoy the same IP protections that Apple enjoys on their work?
I'm trying to understand how to "vote with my money" for not being recorded by these glasses in public. My best interpretation would be financially supporting private establishments that have banned these devices... Which feels like exactly what you're arguing against.
I feel like this has been a talking point for as long as off-the-shelf printers aimed at hobbyists have existed. Calling them AI factories is a bit off the mark imo, there are plenty of hobbyists that learn CAD and want to make their own stuff, but don't want to build their own printer. The kind of people who are interested in reprap are absolutely still around, and I really don't see that community going dissolving because of the rise of capable commercial printers.
I remember a story where some big wall climbers were stuck waiting for a storm to pass, and one of them had brought a paperback book to pass the time. Once he'd finished the first half he cut it in half so the other climbers could have something to do during the wait.
Meaningful decompositions have got to be my favorite subject in linear algebra, and SVD is the king of these. Another location this pops up is "eigenfaces", an early form of compression (and correlation) of images of faces.
Years ago I did a write up of how the SVD relates to singularities of a robotic manipulator:
Comparing OpenSCAD to CadQuery is super apples-to-oranges in the first place. CQ works directly with NURBS curves via the Cascade engine, and OS functions by performing CSG operations. Both certainly have their place, but for engineering applications NURBS are decidedly more powerful.
This is what it comes down to for me as well. If Apple has somehow magically solved the reliability issues this will be fantastic, if they are just fad chasing it'll be DOA
I love these kinds of problems, because they try to produce what humans perceive as random instead of something truly random. Another great example of this is blue noise
I see your point, but in this scenario how do you handle the problem of levying an accurate tax? I suppose we could rely on banks to value assets instead of the government, but since the banks are the ones giving out the loans to pay the tax this feels a bit circular
I guess I'm in the weird position of being a leftist who is generally against wealth taxes. Taxing non-liquid wealth like this requires the government to be able to accurately assess the value of these assets and that's an unrealistic burden IMO. I would rather address the "Buy, Borrow, Die" paradigm from other angles, like restricting the classes of assets one can borrow money against to force liquidation and therefore be subject to a traditional capital gains tax instead. That way the market takes care of the problem of pricing the asset and society can impose a tax on that valuation.
This appears to be a retelling of another well-known process for volume computation: sum together the signed volumes of the tetraheda formed by each face with the origin (or any other fixed point WLOG). Very cool derivation though!
At this point, does precedent even matter? Based on recent rulings, I feel like this exact scenario could play out again and the result would be the exact same.
It really revealed how much he relied on the gift of hindsight when writing his earlier books. Nothing wrong with that per se, but it's something he should have been aware of when doing a book on an ongoing event.
I have started using AI a bit, but I'm still trying to be careful in that if I ever lose access I can still perform my job at pre-AI ability. My understanding is that tokens are still heavily subsidized, and when that well runs dry I don't want it to be some nightmare to go back to the way I was doing my work in like 2022.
When I worked in robotics, it always pissed me off that our recruiters ignored game devs as candidates. There's such a huge overlap in the two fields in terms of the math underpinning the systems