YeGoblynQueenne

5 ms·

1.
The Association for Human Mathematics (AHM)(ahmath.org)
3 points by YeGoblynQueenne 10h ago|0 comments
2.
by YeGoblynQueenne 3d ago
... marginalized people ... ... spaz on the floor ...
3.
by YeGoblynQueenne 3d ago
Well. First they came for the testers. Then they came for the developers.
4.
by YeGoblynQueenne 3d ago
>> How does one come up with such a string of words? By spending all day thinking about them instead of running a country.
5.
Suicidal Compassion: Utilitarianism at AI Companies Endangers Humanity(ai-frontiers.org)
22 points by YeGoblynQueenne 3d ago|3 comments
6.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
Amazing. Comment upon comment, thread upon thread, failing to engage with the substance of the Field medalists' letter and instead going off on tangents about the privileges that mathematicians will lose and how they're bitter abo
7.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
The difference is that most software engineers don't care about bringing up a new generation to keep their field alive when they retire. Software engineers usually don't give a flying fuck for other software engineers, young or ol
8.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
Thanks. Regarding plagiarism, I agree that it is possible to check; I don't know how easy it is. But I do note that the mathematicians who complained that their work was plagiarised by AI did not seem to realise that they, themselves,
9.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
>> I’m no big AI cheerleader, but why don’t you try these models to see what they offer - they might suggest some things you haven’t thought of, or save you some time in your research. One reason not to try is to create an air gap bet
10.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
Don't you mean mass investment?
11.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
Oh, the patient is ill. Let's kill the patient.
12.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
>> I was apart of the "covid chess cohort" and got really into it for quite a few years. In that time, I also learned about what the chess culture was like pre-engine and post-engine, and I think you could argue that post-en
13.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
>> This sounds a lot to me like people in the 90's complaining that computers were destroying chess. Genuine question: who were those people saying that? I don't know that criticism. The criticism I know is from AI researche
14.
Grigori Perelman(en.wikipedia.org)
4 points by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago|1 comments
15.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
You're assuming too much from a single graph with vaguely named axes. I'll wait until there's more concrete information.
16.
by YeGoblynQueenne 4d ago
So you're not going to do it yourself and you want someone else to do it for you? Some mathematician that dedicated their life to understand mathematics must now toil unpaid and unwillingly to understand the AI slop proofs that you wan
17.
by YeGoblynQueenne 5d ago
>> Humans can then work on clarifying why it's true. Presumably you're a human. Are you going to do that?
18.
by YeGoblynQueenne 5d ago
>> And you’re seriously going with “don’t ask inconvenient questions” as an argument? Where did I say that? The conversation you seem to want to have doesn't seem to have any obvious use and you seem to want to debate a point I
19.
by YeGoblynQueenne 5d ago
>> Those same people are now given tools to produce works that they enjoy and can do pretty damn well at. It's the tools that produce the works, not the humans. >> This is a horrible perversion of the quote. What? The full
20.
by YeGoblynQueenne 5d ago
Do I really need to prove that humans have cognition? Or, more to the point, do you want to challenge that assumption?
21.
by YeGoblynQueenne 5d ago
This is no time to despair. It's the time to take a stand. If you don't want to see your discipline go the way of the dodo, then do something about it. I don't know what you should do because I'm not a mathematician. But
22.
by YeGoblynQueenne 5d ago
Why do I need a source? An LLM prompt does not "move to action", because an LLM does not act. People act, animals act, software doesn't act. Acting implies volition and volition implies cognition and if you think that LLMs ha
23.
Open Letter about the Mathathon(docs.google.com)
2 points by YeGoblynQueenne 5d ago|0 comments
24.
by YeGoblynQueenne 6d ago
That's a jingle fallacy. *Jingle-jangle fallacies are erroneous assumptions that either two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy); or two identical or almost identical things are different becau
25.
by YeGoblynQueenne 6d ago
>> Their final “product” is not just a standalone ML model. They don’t need your data just to “improve their products and services”. They build a whole ecosystem and infrastructure around gathering all the knowledge in the world. Incl
26.
by YeGoblynQueenne 6d ago
Wouldn't they just list the number of problems solved then?
27.
by YeGoblynQueenne 6d ago
>> If better training data is the reason here, it would still be a case of the models doing something that is in and of itself super useful! The models really can take that data and distill it into solutions for similar problems faste
28.
by YeGoblynQueenne 6d ago
>> Internal OpenAI models are reportedly solving open problems at a surprisingly fast rate[2] Maybe I'm failing to read that graph properly but the y axis says "pass rate" and it only goes up to 0.5. That would mean eve
29.
by YeGoblynQueenne 6d ago
The brute-forcing is a good, old-fashioned generate-and-test approach like in Simon and Newell's Logic Theorist, which was presented in the Dartmouth convention in 1956, where AI was named by John McCarthy. Logic Theorist caused a big
30.
by YeGoblynQueenne 6d ago
Thanks. Well, that doesn't sound independent at all.

More ›