31–40 of 128 posts
Reading the descriptions of their work makes me think of magic. It's an understanding of the principles of math and physics at a level above almost everyone on the planet - these are modern wizards.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
This Fox has a longing for grapes: He jumps, but the bunch still escapes. So he goes away sour; And, 'tis said, to this hour Declares that he's no taste for grapes.
"But the Emperor has nothing at all on!" said a little child.
"Listen to the voice of innocence!" exclaimed his father; and what the child had said was whispered from one to another.
"But he has nothing at all on!" at last cried out all the people. The Emperor was vexed, for he knew that the people were right; but he thought the procession must go on now! And the lords of the bedchamber took greater pains than ever, to appear holding up a train, although, in reality, there was no train to hold.
"harmonic analysis and geometric measure theory, including applications of multiscale and decoupling techniques to the local smoothing conjecture for the planar wave equation, and major advances in Fourier restriction, Falconer distance sets, Furstenberg sets in the plane, and the Kakeya problem in three dimensions." I'm not sure there is another profession in the world where it's impossible to explain to a layman on…
fwiw, I feel the same way about biology "Lysing action of the (1,2)b-carotene receptive encephalopathy pathway" type shit.
"A Taxonomy of Omnicidal Futures Involving Artificial Intelligence"
(Jacob Tsimerman, Andrew Critch)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Should we be handing out Fields medal to I don't know, maybe. I would not put Clankers on the same level (or category / level of importance) as people but if they produce the work maybe they should get the credit.
But that's not what the Fields Medal is for.
If you're a 41 year old mathematician and do amazing groundbreaking world shifting math, you can't get a Fields Medal either.
Scary stuff from one of the winners: "A Taxonomy of Omnicidal Futures Involving Artificial Intelligence" (Jacob Tsimerman, Andrew Critch) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09369
Scary stuff from one of the winners: "A Taxonomy of Omnicidal Futures Involving Artificial Intelligence" (Jacob Tsimerman, Andrew Critch) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09369
Scary stuff from one of the winners: "A Taxonomy of Omnicidal Futures Involving Artificial Intelligence" (Jacob Tsimerman, Andrew Critch) https://arxiv.org/pdf/2507.09369
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like saying: - winners in the 30s were the last time we have pure human to win (before computer) - winners in the 70s were the last time we have pure human to win (before internet) - winners in the 90s were the last time we have pure human to win (before search engine) Why can't we treat LLMs as just another tool like computers, search engines, computing libraries? Why do people keep trying to anthropomorphizing…
If you say "find some unsolved graph theory problem and counterexample for it" and LLM actually does it, is it really you that solved the problem? That's the difference vs other tools.
Or are you saying that’s what happened in this case. Because that’s not the way I understand it.
"harmonic analysis and geometric measure theory, including applications of multiscale and decoupling techniques to the local smoothing conjecture for the planar wave equation, and major advances in Fourier restriction, Falconer distance sets, Furstenberg sets in the plane, and the Kakeya problem in three dimensions." I'm not sure there is another profession in the world where it's impossible to explain to a layman on…
https://www.quantamagazine.org/series/fields-and-abacus-meda...