vouaobrasil

6 ms·

1.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
No because some people are against AI for reasons other than just slop. Some people actually find it revolting that it uses so much energy and that it encourages deskilling in many. AI in my view is antithetical to human creativity and I tr
2.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
> Banning the AI just means that everyone is using it, but nobody is saying it aloud. Since it saves so much time when used correctly. Not exactly. It also attracts developers who are against AI philosophically. What I've actually s
3.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
Personally I find it more difficult now to execute my creative vision compared to years ago with a little less tech. I think there's an optimal point to automation that is easily reached and after that the benefit from automation actua
4.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
That's not really the point of technology at all. It was at one point perhaps with simple tools, but now it's more like "find a more efficient way to replace work in the short-term to get an advantage over others". The g
5.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
Well yes. Even though we can turn it off technically now, the prisoner's dilemma prevents it. It's not a technical limitations but for practical purposes, it's already virtually impossible to turn off.
6.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
I would burn it because it's too much power for any one person to handle. Or, I would take it for myself by force and use it to dominate everyone else.
7.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
if A then B Can only be false if there is an instance where A is true, and B is false. In all other cases it's true, even when A is always false. That's the key.
8.
by vouaobrasil 4d ago
I think it's more like the latter group likes the dopamine hit brought on my getting attention from release stuff.
9.
by vouaobrasil 5d ago
I agree with that!
10.
by vouaobrasil 5d ago
People become interested in things when they become invested in it personally, because they've contributed to it. So I don't think it will stay relevant...
11.
by vouaobrasil 5d ago
Actually, it seems that every time we do move forward, we do make things worse. So I think the tech doomers actually have a point.
12.
by vouaobrasil 5d ago
Then maybe sometimes it's better to take a break and not bend the natural constraints of life for once. I mean, I'm all for easing some of life with automation but it seems that a general trend is emerging where people will just k
13.
by vouaobrasil 5d ago
The problem with your argument is that there is a cost to using AI so it's not really free. There's an environmental and a social cost that restricts the freedom of others, which is technically still open source but not in the spi
14.
by vouaobrasil 5d ago
I miss the days when people would release software not touched by AI. And I wish at least there'd be a disclaimer saying that this was AI-assisted, so I could avoid it.
15.
by vouaobrasil 6d ago
From the article: > I am just trying to point out that the FOSS movement is not anything new, not really. It is just another manifestation of a drive that has been with us since time immemorial: the thirst for freedom. I think that was t
16.
by vouaobrasil 6d ago
I never accepted the proof of the original, because in my view a proof needs to be convincing as well as correct. Not every mathematician has this view, but language-wise I'd prefer to call the original proof a "verification of co
17.
by vouaobrasil 6d ago
But as technology progresses and becomes more advanced, it does seem to set goals in all directions in that seems inevitable if we continue to 'collaborate' with modern technology. I mean, we no longer develop tools to help us out
18.
by vouaobrasil 6d ago
I was talking about regular old keyboards. But you're just being pedantic.
19.
by vouaobrasil 7d ago
Keyboards don't suggest chains of reasoning or words to type. When I press the K key, I know exactly what will happen. It's just a translation layer that gives an output known ahead of time and thus does not impinge upon the creat
20.
by vouaobrasil 7d ago
The tools the researchers used though was much more than an spellchecker, because spellcheckers don't come up with chains of reasoning for the arguments in the book. The LLMs did in the case of the Navier-Stokes problem.
21.
by vouaobrasil 7d ago
I don't think they can make up for any mess. Because even if LLMs bring about a lack of scarcity across all domains, human beings will be alienated because indvidual differences and skills won't matter any more so we'll have
22.
by vouaobrasil 7d ago
Yes, the glue is already breaking and AI is the next stage in the process.
23.
by vouaobrasil 7d ago
Even horrible acts can originate from good intentions and places of beauty. The tool use does not blind me but reveals the stupidity of merely solving problems for the sake of solving them. Only your love and addiction to technology blinds
24.
by vouaobrasil 8d ago
I agree that the low-hanging fruit has largely been picked. But then I think we should acknowledge that and stop innovating, or just work less on new solutions and more on clarifying old ones, and start to work on degrowth rather than usele
25.
by vouaobrasil 8d ago
Here's the point: when people solve problems, they come together and create a community to eventually use the new knowledge in positive ways, including inspiring younger mathematicians by sharing insights. The human element is key and
26.
by vouaobrasil 8d ago
As a former mathematician, I'm not impressed at all. I don't even care about the solution. I think an integral part of math is what the human mind can do, and if AI was required, then to me it's not impressive at all. I never
27.
by vouaobrasil 8d ago
Actually there will because if you've actually ever spent time doing math, you only really get to that level of truly understanding and appreciating the stories if you've actually done the hard work yourself, which in turn will be
28.
by vouaobrasil 8d ago
The reason is because the entirety of society, historically, has been based upon humans using their differential skills to further it, which in turn promotes societal cohesion. If most human endeavours are solved, then we will enter a perio
29.
by vouaobrasil 1mo ago
It's usually because they're not the ones living in the dense housing, or will ever.
30.
by vouaobrasil 1mo ago
No there were a few people that could. And in principle, if Andrew Wiles did it, others could too and were motivated to do it. What I'm saying is that people will be conditioned to explore less on their own with tools like this and thu

More ›