pfdietz

5 ms·

1.
by pfdietz 3d ago
s/Leaf/Lean/
2.
by pfdietz 3d ago
And you seem to not realize that your unhinged argument impeaches whatever conclusion you're trying to justify. Good points don't require this sort of slimy misrepresentation. I don't work for any AI company.
3.
by pfdietz 3d ago
I looked through your words and didn't see anything they should be ashamed of. It seems like you're trying to construct from mental vapor some justification for your prejudice.
4.
by pfdietz 4d ago
Sure, we can show anything if we're allowed to make stuff up from personal outrage. Why should anyone else consider your personal opinion on this to have any weight?
5.
by pfdietz 4d ago
Yes, let's lie and call something stealing, then pontificate about morality. At worst what OpenAI did was inconsiderate, but not referencing prior work is a minor academic sin. This is especially the case when AI is not playing the va
6.
by pfdietz 4d ago
The consequences of that invasion debunks the claim it was done "for good reason". It seems to have been done without use of reason at all.
7.
by pfdietz 4d ago
No one owns mathematics. It's not covered by IP law.
8.
by pfdietz 4d ago
OpenAI didn't do anything wrong. Why should they apologize?
9.
by pfdietz 4d ago
Leaf dumps out a proof object that can be verified to be correct. Absent a bug in the verifier, you can trust it, probably more than you can trust a human-produced proof. This is why Lean was a thing even before AI.
10.
by pfdietz 5d ago
The interesting difference between alchemy and chemistry was a change in the expectation of how results would be obtained and communicated. That is also changing here.
11.
by pfdietz 5d ago
How dare they defend themselves when attacked by their betters. The nerve of those peasants.
12.
by pfdietz 5d ago
Another historical analogy: this is kind of like the transition from alchemy to chemistry.
13.
by pfdietz 5d ago
Hans Moravec likely isn't surprised by this.
14.
by pfdietz 5d ago
That's going to force formalization to become required for any new result to be taken seriously.
15.
by pfdietz 5d ago
LLMs are excellent at doing searches of the math literature; presumably they'd also be good at doing searches of AI-generated results.
16.
by pfdietz 5d ago
This sort of nonsense makes me root for the AI companies to set the edifice of organized math on fire.
17.
by pfdietz 5d ago
It would be too transparently ridiculous.
18.
by pfdietz 5d ago
I expected this. They prove a millenium result, but it doesn't count because they are bad people. It's this sort of thing that motivates people to burn down the institution you might be trying to defend.
19.
by pfdietz 5d ago
If such reviews are required by legislation then you stop it in the courts; approvals without legally required steps are invalid. If they are not required by legislation then you just deal with the change. While you're thinking about t
20.
by pfdietz 5d ago
In other news, evangelical christians ask scientists to stop publishing about evolution. We apparently have a moral obligation to protect existing power structures? Tao should maybe consider there are people who are indifferent to, or activ
21.
by pfdietz 5d ago
> Puts the onus on the AI companies to provide a specific replacement mechanism, no? Why? If someone makes an innovation that undercuts the underpinnings of some existing institution, why are they are responsible for cleaning up its fai
22.
by pfdietz 5d ago
That's causing objective damage. We don't invoke shame for behaviors that cause that.
23.
by pfdietz 5d ago
Consistency is also important. Making arbitrary distinctions just to cloak personal preferences is hypocritical.
24.
by pfdietz 5d ago
More modern techniques are less violent. I understand one heavily used in Kuwait was to place a ~10 meter hollow pipe above the blown out well so the flame could be displaced from the well head, then injecting water or nitrogen at the base
25.
by pfdietz 5d ago
Shame is also a form of social control. Be ashamed you don't know your place, lower class person. Lack of required shame used to be called being "uppity".
26.
by pfdietz 6d ago
But one might also ask: is it actually bad to do beta testing on live vehicles? Self-driving cars might globally save many millions of lives. Consideration of statistical lives leads to counterintuitive consequences.
27.
by pfdietz 6d ago
Waiting for the Mentour Pilot episode on this.
28.
by pfdietz 6d ago
> In water photons travel at say 200,000km a second. It really depends on the energy of the photons. There is "dispersion". It's the same effect that causes a prism to split white light into different wavelengths.
29.
by pfdietz 6d ago
I didn't say voting would work, only not ruling that out; I said those other approaches would not work. It's possible nothing works. Voting does work if enough voters feel strongly about something. Look at the policians scurry
30.
by pfdietz 6d ago
One get can O(1) expected time on any set of keys if one uses "universal hashing": choosing the hash function at random from a universal set of hash functions. The expectation is now over this random choice, not over some random

More ›