91–100 of 681 posts
This is the second ChatGPT shared conversation I've seen today that is truly fascinating. The first one was someone proving another conjecture false by just repeatedly saying "keep going" to ChatGPT: https://x.com/DmitryRybin1/status/2079904005652893709 What a world we live in.
From the prompt: > You should do a breakthrough This is just as funny and ridiculous as those "make no mistake" prompts.
This is the second ChatGPT shared conversation I've seen today that is truly fascinating. The first one was someone proving another conjecture false by just repeatedly saying "keep going" to ChatGPT: https://x.com/DmitryRybin1/status/2079904005652893709 What a world we live in.
"Worked for 88m 24s... >"
"Complete finite counterexample"
...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> there’s no “intelligence” there BUT There is clearly intelligence there. We have no way to recognise intelligence other than the appearance of intelligence and this very clearly displays that. It's also quite clearly different to human intelligence in some notable ways, but not in any that preclude describing it as intelligent. At least for normal non-pedantic definitions of the word.
There is no intelligence. If anything, this just shows that natural language and mathematics are both fields which are structured in a logically computable way. And if you have a machine that can compute symbolic logic, you can process both natural language and mathematics. A second corollary is that rational consciousness and thought is less likely to be contained in language than previously thought, because if lang…
Da hole raisin y nat-lang be v. hard is dat i kan rite lik dis an it be cool 4 native engrish speekrs 2 unerstand. LLMs are of course fine with this sentence in exactly the way that Zork's engine couldn't be.
This is the second ChatGPT shared conversation I've seen today that is truly fascinating. The first one was someone proving another conjecture false by just repeatedly saying "keep going" to ChatGPT: https://x.com/DmitryRybin1/status/2079904005652893709 What a world we live in.
Math has some of the most insanely dense and impenetrable nomenclature. I can generally keep my head mostly above water or at least near the surface reading from most STEM fields, perhaps leaning on google/wikipedia a bit, but man, mathematics just so quickly decouples from all common tractable understanding it's insane. Sorry it's a bit of an aside, but I imagine many other otherwise "technical" folks feel the same…
I had a few moments of this in the past. For example, in my quantum class the teacher wrote "H Psi = E Psi" on the board, we all laughed, "just cancel the psi" but it turns out one was a multiplcation and the other was a matrix multiplication (operator) and so we had to learn all new nomenclature. Similarly, at some point somebody pointed out to me "the reason you're confused is that the bold on that variable means i…
This was my conversation with ChatGPT 4 years ago: https://i.imgur.com/WPaWgzZ.png Where will we be in another 4 years? What a time to be alive!
/s
Math has some of the most insanely dense and impenetrable nomenclature. I can generally keep my head mostly above water or at least near the surface reading from most STEM fields, perhaps leaning on google/wikipedia a bit, but man, mathematics just so quickly decouples from all common tractable understanding it's insane. Sorry it's a bit of an aside, but I imagine many other otherwise "technical" folks feel the same…
Terrance Tao's chatgpt conversation is really interesting for a variety of reasons: 1. The counter example wasn't just a brute force selection, the polynomial is structured in a very specific way that ends up getting the result. 2. Terry Tao's questions are very specific and prompts the AI in a useful way, that without high math training you are not going to get the same information out of it. Terry seems to see some…
[flagged]
Similar to how Cypher puts it: I know this is “just” next token inference, matrix mult and just software, ie there’s no “intelligence” there BUT, looking at this convo … damn! The fascinating this is that the LLM is not acting as a tool here AFAIk, but very much like a colleague. I have no knowledge of the domain and have only PhD EE level math knowledge, so maybe my bar is too low.
Math has some of the most insanely dense and impenetrable nomenclature. I can generally keep my head mostly above water or at least near the surface reading from most STEM fields, perhaps leaning on google/wikipedia a bit, but man, mathematics just so quickly decouples from all common tractable understanding it's insane. Sorry it's a bit of an aside, but I imagine many other otherwise "technical" folks feel the same…
I had a few moments of this in the past. For example, in my quantum class the teacher wrote "H Psi = E Psi" on the board, we all laughed, "just cancel the psi" but it turns out one was a multiplcation and the other was a matrix multiplication (operator) and so we had to learn all new nomenclature. Similarly, at some point somebody pointed out to me "the reason you're confused is that the bold on that variable means i…
whether he succeeded, is debatable. But APL is definitely powerful, succinct and "regular".
In APL you don't infer the operation from the types at all. × is elementwise, +.× is inner product /always/, on scalars, vectors, matrices, whatever. The glyph tells you what happens. Nothing is bold, nothing is inferred, nothing depends on what your professor assumed you'd absorbed.
I've been trying to get into Iversonian languages myself with the book: Calculous on J