magicalist
This is kind of gross. Make the claim or not, don't do this pseudo-sealioning thing. Moreover, engage with the actual content (or you could just not engage at all!), not this shallowest possible dismissal.
The context, though, is that Data is both credibly conscious and self aware, and they all know a plausible mechanism for him to have consciousness and self awareness, in a way that's recognizably human in form. The more alien a (supposed) consciousness is, I think the more work you'll have to do in justifying the application of those labels.
First you're just disagreeing about the relative importance of "community" vs the license used. This does not seem like an important distinction, blog rhetorical structuring aside, since the value of each is really "it depends" (in the extreme, neither community or license matter if no one ever sees or hears of the code, for instance).
Second:
> If I publish my code under an open source license... If I keep my code proprietary...
That isn't even the distinction that the author is making. They're only talking about communities around open source code. They spell out the dichotomy quite explicitly:
> This is why I don't care as much anymore about a project being under a copyleft free software license or a non-copyleft free software license.
Which talk of his gave this impression?
Read what you quoted again. That's not what it says.
Sure, but that only matters if migration is going to be the last thing anyone does on a project. Unless you think typescript 7.1 ought to be enough for anybody, it also matters what the typescript team wants to write/read/reason in.
So not remotely the same thing.
Do you think that this is a quote from the article you just read?
I swear half the comments here are just from people reading dunks on r/singularity and x and getting real mad at strawmen.
No, the dumb thing is the idea that there are "sides".
> basically both sides now dislike that he flip flopped
Literally the only people with this opinion of Tao are internet forum warriors who have no expertise in the field and who's opinion of Tao don't matter in the slightest.
Don't invent things to get mad about, please.
No, he literally wrote in the intro to the book that it wasn't canon. It was a fan project and he thought that it was great there were fans doing things like that.
edit: and like with the terrible Dune prequels, the impulse to say "here's what really happened" usually diminishes what's interesting and powerful about oblique allusions in SF meant at least partly to function as a mirror on humanity.
> Senior Director of Product in Insurance Tech
anakin_padme.jpg
This was a talk given to other mathematicians about the future of mathematics; sounds like only "you" have a problem for some reason.
This is a strawman (and a weirdly strong appeal to emotion for unclear reasons).
The claim is that their scientists were loudly saying internally their PR campaigns and climate claims were false and contrary to their findings. Executives read these memos and chose to do these anyways.
For instance:
> The new disclosures in the Massachusetts case add to the evidence with excerpts from a deposition by an Exxon scientist who worked on the program.
> Asked whether a 2018 press release, which said Exxon anticipated “10,000 barrels of algae biofuel per day could be produced by 2025,” was misleading, the scientist said “yes,” adding, “All the clauses in there are patently false.”
edit: the single memo (one of many the article is discussing) that you linked is not supposed to be some smoking gun, it's useful to dispel any ignorance that there's no reasonable claim of ignorance on Exxon's part, and the date is especially notable: 1988. Basically any PR, legal, and lobbying work for at least 38 years is suspect because of what they actually knew.
> Wildberries (essentially Russia's Amazon)
And military supplier newly owned by Putin's buddy! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_strikes_on_Wildberri...
At least put a disclaimer for the ad for this site, and maybe disclose how you came up with a total ordering for "top" open problems (vibes)?
> How problems are ranked. LLMs compare pairs of problems. A reliability-weighted model combines those judgments into the ranking, with calibration across model families. The model-family weights are OpenAI 1.00, Claude 1.00, GLM 0.95, and DeepSeek 0.90. These are modeling choices, not measured probabilities of correctness.
What I think you might be missing, though, is that Erdos was inherently playful with these problems. He'd sometimes just drop in the middle of a paper "hey, this variant of this lemma is neat, I bet it's true, but I'll give cash to anyone who disproves it" and move on. Or challenge a colleague while visiting and collaborating with them, and the problem would get spread by word of mouth. The problems often weren't things he thought long and hard about individually, but they appealed to his sense of aesthetics and curiosity and play. I think that's maybe close to what Bloom is talking about there. It's handy to have a catalog, but fundamentally, creating a set of unsolved math problems was not what Erdos was doing.
Was my comment incorrect? You admit it's both possible to work around it, people are actually doing that, and the comment does indeed give themselves a little pat on the back for working hard to unsuccessfully solve a problem with the product they themselves choose to make and market? So what's the reactionary part?
Yes it's true people have figured out how to disable the safeguard, but we all agree the important thing as we try to sell millions more of these is that we tried, right?
lol, see, it's unfalsifiable. No true abstraction ceiling.
Is it, or is it only the parts you hear about/pay attention to?
> People spent over a hundred years arguing whether a continuum approximation of a particle system would behave oddly. In the mean time, other folks went ahead and completely revolutionized the world of computational fluid dynamics (with multi-billion $$$ impact on society) by just doing better numerics (Kahn-style numerical analysis).
Yes, maybe famous solving famous conjectures is just trivia and trophy collecting and the real value is the intuition and techniques you develop along the way to solving them which you can then bring to bear on things like CFD.
It sounds more like you're turning a vibes based theory into a tautology.
Hofstadter struggling with math for the first time in graduate school isn't a unique story, nor is his self introspection about this event a good basis for an apparently unfalsifiable theory about human cognition.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you point, but I don't know how widely this would be held as true. Are you defining "math" as _only_ what can be proven under some particular formal system?
Producing human understandable proofs is possibly a job best for humans today, but the author appears to agree with you that this is probably fleeting (and argues that even if you disagree, it should probably be treated as if it is fleeting when planning for the future):
> Right now AI systems arguably underperform us at theory-building, asking questions, exposition, … so we could prioritize and reward those skills. I think this is unwise: compare the speed at which the academy adapts to the speed at which model capabilities improve. We need to consider the endgame. If the models remain incapable in some domain, we can adjust later.
Which is fine, great even (I do the same thing!), but in trying different things outside your day job, it seems like you do understand why people working on different things than you might be "reporting all these negative AI experiences"?