qarl
Um. There are applications of mathematics that have a practical effect on the world. Right? You've crossed a bridge before, have you not?
And what is your solution then - only certain people will be allowed to work on math? If I use a computer to solve a math problem I will be a criminal? The whole thing is profoundly wrong-headed.
> Its goal is to expand the frontier of human understanding
Yes, and it does that quite nicely.
> The AI generated proofs are barely comprehensible by mathematicians
My understanding is that if you ask an AI to explain it to you it's quite easy to follow. But apparently that solution is intolerable for some.
I wonder if ancient man took a war footing against the wheel. "I've spent my whole life carrying heavy rocks. This is unacceptable!"
I love me some AI, but it also attracts the NFT crowd. It's a problem.
I appreciate your taking the time to talk with me. I hope you have a nice day.
I already did in the other thread. Let's not get distracted, shall we?
It is a true statement which directly implies my claim. Hence "proof".
> I can just say "they didn't use those materials".
Yeah... that's not how uncertainty works.
Because there are light materials it could have been fabricated from.
Sorry - I don't know how to explain my position without using big words like "could".
That's why you keep straw manning me. You're not doing it on purpose - you simply can't wrap your head around the concept of uncertainty, and how one reasons under it.
This is hysterical.
> you can enumerate each thing you believe could have been faked
Sure. The one I've been citing for days now. I've only said it like 10 times - but sure, maybe the 11th is the charm.
The car could have been deceptively light. Which would also explain why it didn't have a driver - he would have weighed it down too much.
And yet that does not prove it was not. It could have been faked very easily.
You don't understand the difference between certainty and possibility, do you?
> I dislike him.
Sure you do.
Are you having trouble understanding the difference between certainty and possibility?
It kinda seems like you are.
I can see you want to create a firewall between Elon and Tesla but it's ridiculous. He calls the shots. He is famous for calling the shots.
Did I really need to spell that out for you? Sheesh.
Again with the straw man. Tsk tsk.
My claim is, and has always been, this: the demo could easily have been faked, Elon is known for doing shitty things like this, and you cannot prove otherwise.
Will you please give up already? This is getting tedious.
> I’m just anti-bad argument
FUNNY! Me too. How curious.
How the mighty have fallen.
A test car crashed into a fence in Tesla's parking lot during filming.
The video was cut from multiple takes.
The route was hardcoded.
Gotta clean up those degenerates, amirite?
It's a tell.
The CEO is dishonest and so you're sure he didn't do a fake demo.
Hm.
No one is falling for it.
> where are the fabricated demos?
Why not even make it more specific? "Where are the demos where he had a fake flying car before"? No one's falling for that one either.
LOL. You're talking about a guy who lies all the time.
And he's killed how many people with his DOGE chainsaw?
What on earth causes someone to be a bootlicker for someone that horrible. It's mind blowing.
Heh... you're not a very rational fellow, are you? That's ok - better to stop the facade. Be true to yourself, you'll be happier.
> Incorrect statement. Try your AI again and see if you get a different result.
You know what they say - it takes a big man to admit his mistakes. Guess what that means of one who can't?
You don’t trust court records? That’s odd. I think maybe the cognitive dissonance thing is getting worse.
> I don’t need to show how. I just say you’re wrong and then that is the truth. You can’t argue against it.
Probably also why your sentence was messed up.
You misunderstand - I’m claiming the opposite - your eyes are not sufficient proof. Just because you saw a flying car does not mean there was a flying car. See also: David Copperfield.
And I can cite references for all my claims about Elon. Do you need to see them?
> No. Get a grip.
Your sentence doesn’t parse, full stop. If it does, please show how. Every time you dodge the question of the main verb, you provide more evidence against yourself.
> It wasn’t faked though so your point is invalid.
You understand your statement is equivalent to arguing that the Statue of Liberty did actually disappear, right? You have no more evidence to back up this show than you have to back up Copperfield’s.
> If you have to use AI to parse my sentences you might have a problem.
I was good-faith trying to understand you. I fed it to software that examined it. Software tells me it does not parse. I invite you to go argue with that software, not me.
OH! No need. I enjoyed explaining it to you.