chongli

5 ms·

1.
by chongli 28d ago
Moreover, the disdain you have for low-value output in mathematics is not unique to you I didn't say anything about low-value output. No one actually knows the value of any particular piece of mathematics within that deluge. Mathemat
2.
by chongli 28d ago
And that's an issue why? The issue is SNR: signal to noise ratio. Generating exponentially more mathematics, particularly if the process is indiscriminate or optimized for something other than usefulness or mathematical relevance (su
3.
by chongli 28d ago
We have thousands of years of precedent that suggests that breakthroughs in mathematics tend to accumulate into broader technology breakthroughs in other domains. That's a misconception. Only a tiny percentage of mathematics has seen
4.
by chongli 28d ago
No, they're saying that what is true in mathematics is contingent, not absolute. It all depends on which set of axioms use, what assumptions you make. The area of a triangle doesn't have 1 unique formula, it has many, depending on
5.
by chongli 28d ago
A proof by contradiction that p = np is of no use to anyone, given that it wouldn't help you find any polynomial time algorithms for np-hard problems.
6.
by chongli 28d ago
I’ve already given one reason why the switch is a bad idea. Another reason is that powerful third parties such as Meta and Google could force users to disable their own protections and give those apps full access to all data as a condition
7.
by chongli 29d ago
You can say that about a lot of things in life. Legalized gambling, for example. Tons of people ruin their lives with it and this creates big externalities for society. But we tolerate it so that everyone has the freedom to gamble. Apple on
8.
by chongli 29d ago
I assume an expert mode (where you can sideload anything you want) is what you are asking for. To that I raise the standard objection: how do you protect grandma from having a criminal social-engineer her into enabling expert mode and then
9.
by chongli 29d ago
So that means I can finally put my 3rd party context commands into the main menu instead of having to always show more to see the legacy one?
10.
by chongli 29d ago
Sadly I’m in a locked down corporate environment, so I can’t edit the registry. IT even closed my ticket when I asked for them to make the edit on my behalf. I don’t use Windows on any personal machines, so there’s no way for this to benefi
11.
by chongli 29d ago
Are they finally going to fix the issue of having introduced a second right click menu that forces me to click “show more options” literally every single time I want to do anything?
12.
by chongli 29d ago
I see there are a lot of Keepass apps in the App Store. How do I trust the developers not to steal my credentials though?
13.
by chongli 1mo ago
Do they work on iOS?
14.
by chongli 1mo ago
I’d love to have my own password manager that syncs between all my devices without relying on a third party server, but I don’t know of one. Do you? A physical notebook is so easily lost I wouldn’t even consider it.
15.
by chongli 1mo ago
You don’t have to get paid to make contributions to math. There are still loads of hobbyists making contributions around the world. The guy that found the aperiodic monotile was a hobbyist who collaborated with a researcher. There was a sig
16.
by chongli 1mo ago
I have 200+ different passwords stored in iCloud Keychain, each 20+ characters long. How am I supposed to remember all of those? Do you use the same password on every site? How do you deal with data breaches?
17.
by chongli 1mo ago
Right, that’s what they do in sci-fi books and movies. But then those collars magically never need batteries replaced, service, or replacement. They also don’t have any issues with false positive detonations. If the collar can be deactivate
18.
by chongli 1mo ago
The other obvious weak point is that you can’t surveil the guards 24/7 to make sure they don’t swap the live explosives collar with a placebo collar.
19.
by chongli 1mo ago
There is no more inertia in the academic sector than in the software developer sector. That is not true. In academia you have extremely niche research specializations and tenure as two major contributors to inertia. In general software de
20.
by chongli 1mo ago
No, I’m using the right one [1]. You are the one using a bizarre definition for your own purposes. I can see there is no further productive discussion to be had with you at all. I bid you good day. [1] https://www.merriam-webster
21.
by chongli 1mo ago
Those are some strong claims. I’m deeply skeptical of all of them. I believe Terry Tao when he says the bottleneck will no longer be the writing of proofs, it’ll be everything else: reading them, reviewing, publishing, and teaching from the
22.
by chongli 1mo ago
That’s still comprehensible. Incomprehensible chemistry instructions simply could not be followed by any human. They would be of no use to anyone.
23.
by chongli 1mo ago
If I told you "don't use spin locks, call futex instead", do you think have gained an understanding of the Linux scheduler? Yes, because I already knew what schedulers are, what spinlocks are, and if I want to know what fut
24.
by chongli 1mo ago
It’s right here: The age of humans comprehending things is coming to an end [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49312914
25.
by chongli 1mo ago
No, my point was only to refute the idea that people need to be egotistical or moronic (the only two options) to cling to an idea past its expiry date. People could also be “pot-committed” career-wise. Or they could have myriad other reason
26.
by chongli 1mo ago
That's because his examples are obvious and not at all interesting, since we've already seen them. His original claim amounts to creating an AI that takes its place above humans as some kind of electronic God, delivering edicts to
27.
by chongli 1mo ago
If an AI can communicate its findings to us in a way that we can understand it, then its findings are by definition intelligible to humans. Your claim was about texts for which this is not possible.
28.
by chongli 1mo ago
Where is the value in an unintelligible gibberish proof? We already have countless examples of such filling up the arXiv, written by hacks long before LLMs started writing proofs. No one cares about them. You might as well build a box blast
29.
by chongli 1mo ago
One person need not completely understand something for it to have value; it's sufficient for there to exist a shared understanding. an LLM might e.g. break some cryptographic algorithm in a way utterly unintelligible to humans, but t
30.
by chongli 1mo ago
Again, do you believe that there are documents, of any value, that humans don't understand? There is no value in an undeciphered document until understanding is achieved, just as a lode of gold ore in some asteroid orbiting a distant

More ›