qarl2

If you want to record the motion of the planets, naively you have large tables of positions.

To compress that, you may smoothly interpolate sparse positions.

To compress that, you encode the laws of gravity and simulate from a starting state.

Compression is literally understanding.

You have a nice day.

> dufus

Tsk tsk.

If you did not ask for the rejection letter - that would indicate that you didn't even do the most basic checking to determine the facts.

And that would seriously color your statement above "Trust me, I try."

I hope you answer.

I'm not saying empathy is a Chinese psyop. The empathy is real. But empathy requires awareness - and awareness IS controlled by the algorithm.

Look at how the TikTok kids (who went nuts for the Palestinians) don't give a crud about the Cubans.

NBER w35194 (Alvarez et al., May 2026) instruments for siting and finds the opposite: +6.2% establishments and +8.2% AGI at 25 years.

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w35194/w351...

Does this seems like rational behavior, guys?

Surely if I'm doing something wrong you can explain it to me with words, right?

EDIT: WOW - the whole thread has been removed. Yikes guys - erasing the record is the opposite of transparency. You understand the value of transparency, right?

Did you ask him for the full rejection letter? That's the issue I raised below. I'm wondering if he forged the app name.

It seems like the situation still remains a little ambiguous - and forging the name on that letter would be definitive proof.

On the other hand, if you didn't ask for it - why not? It seems like the very least amount of verification you could have done.

Did it simply not occur to you that a source might lie?

Yes it does. To fact check this story - he asked the source (twice) if he was lying.

> I'm not really sure what you're implicitly expecting him to have done "better" here.

He could have asked for the full text of the rejection letter, which would have revealed the name switch. For starters.

Other journalists make a much stronger effort to avoid these kinds of errors.

Not really. When he says "I was misled" he's passing the blame. Other statements are equally defensive.

Notice how the retractions of larger publications do not make similar claims. They state the error and move on.

I want to know if the human effort, per story, is the same as other publications. Does Gruber make a real fact checking effort, or does he merely trust his gut?

I suspect it's much less. Do you know otherwise?

I don't think it makes your point, tho. The question is error per volume.

I seriously doubt Gruber does the same amount of fact checking as a serious publication. And that was my point above.

But I could be wrong - if you actually know I'd love the answer.

Gruber has a massive audience. He should try harder.

We don't appreciate facts anymore?

Which is why I provided a link to a the source of one such project above. I have several projects in that Github account if you need more.

Perhaps you didn't see it.

> If the people claiming that everything has changed were even a fraction as productive as they think, then it would be visible even to people who weren't looking.

with:

> If you can't see this - you should probably get your eyes checked.

He is clearly suggesting I am delusional about my productivity gains, and I'm the one who gets flagged.

I daresay I'm noticing a bias in the moderation.

And yet, I am still quite good at mathematics.

HEH. Not sure why you're implying I have changed my position. I said as much above and would have said the same at any time. I don't think it's controversial in the least that there are things AI can't do.

Do you have a weird need to reframe this so you can feel like you won? You shouldn't do that. It's not healthy.

Do you have a weird need to reframe this so you can feel like you won? You shouldn't do that. It's not healthy.

Granted, that's not exactly the claim these days, the claim's goalposts shift constantly, as these things do.

But if you go back to the top of this conversation - I asked why people aren't seeing the miracles (not cute tricks - useful things that simply were impossible before) and I was largely met with the response "you're delusional if you see miracles."

But the thing is - I am not. So I am going to continue arguing that case every time I see a version of it.

So no, I'm not interested in exploring other issues. Sorry. Yours in particular I find as interesting as discussing whether Microsoft Word can be used to edit video files. Not interesting.

But if you need validation, here it is: there are many problems that AI cannot solve. Of course there are. There always will be.

You're right - there are still many problems that have not been solved by AI. AI has not found a cheap and effective way to turn lead into gold, as an example.

But I sorta think that's a silly metric. There are always going to be unsolved problems for any system. The interesting metric is how many problems have been solved - and how surprising are they.

Like I said above - a decompiler that produces semantic understanding of the machine code it's looking at (this address is score; this address is how many lives are left; this address is...) would have been considered literally impossible before LLMs. Today, I was able to implement such a system in under two weeks.

That's an impressive result. If you disagree, I'd love to discuss it with you.

What does your new subject have to do with the fact that the previous arguments were all pretty much baloney?

Pointing to a problem that has not been solved is completely unrelated to the miraculous things that have been solved.

And I thought you'd decided (three times now) that I'm not worth talking to?