161–170 of 265 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're trained on human data. I would expect them to emulate human biases as closely as possible.
Is it? I'd expect most of the training set to be synthetic data extrapolated from a small set of human authored texts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably part of why machines are doing so well at counterexamples. They have no aesthetic commitment to the conjecture and no embarrassment about producing something ugly
They're trained on human data. I would expect them to emulate human biases as closely as possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is the video available not through a proprietary player? > After this the book was pulped and she had some sort of psychotic break during COVID and allied with ultra-right and COVID denialist loonies. That's quite an extreme shift considering she had previously been a leading figure in third-wave feminism and an OWS activist.
The other Naomi, Naomi Klein, wrote an entire book that uses Wolf's "transformation" as a structural scaffold to explore the rise of the new right/MAGA etc. etc. It's called "Doppelganger".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is astonishing. How could a person go to the lengths of writing an entire book without ever looking up this sort of thing?
The term she mistook for meaning a death/execution had been recorded was "death recorded". So it's a mistake that could be made similarly to how one might confidently assume that a "public school" is a school which is a school that is either government funded or open to anybody in the local area. More generally I think people are inappropriately confident in general. When you go through history just about every centu…
Like, I bought the game just before the Nether was added, and I thought that was not a very good feature, but just a few weeks before that, he'd added monster spawners, and just a few weeks before that, he'd added redstone, and a few weeks before that, minecarts, and a few weeks before that, signs, and a few weeks before that, the world wasn't infinite yet. Just another few months back, and the game didn't have an inventory. That guy had the opposite mindset of me and he got shit done.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you thinking of proof by contradiction, which is rejected by constructionism? [Dis]proof by counterexample is the most straightforward way to show a statement to be false. What better way is there to disprove a general statement like 'all x are y' than finding an 'x' that isn't 'y'?
It’s very straightforward, but it often doesn’t (and here didn’t) fully satisfy the curiosity that was embedded in the original problem. Why did the Jacobian conjecture seem to be true? Is there some underlying symmetry that’s very slightly broken? Or perhaps there’s all kinds of counterexamples, and the intuitive pattern is only real for certain kinds of functions which happen to predominate in our intuition. Then h…
A lot of this math is beyond my comprehension, but it often seems to talk of proofs of theorems. What I want to know is if we continue on this accelerated AI mathematics trajectory, will we eventually be discovering new forms of math that will in turn have some applications down the line in engineering or biomedicine etc? I guess what I’m asking is are we on the cusp of a huge breakthrough for humanity, or largely ju…
I wonder if at some point mathematicians will be over-flooded with proofs to check and eventually some over confident false claim will make it into math. Maybe in the future the work of Mathematicians will be like the ones of SWEs with AI, check thousands of lines of AI generated proof and find the subtle errors
>I wonder if at some point mathematicians will be over-flooded with proofs to check and eventually some over confident false claim will make it into math. That point had come some time ago. Nowadays the literature is both enormous and littered with false proofs and an unknown, but nonzero, number of false published results.
"Outcounterexampled": there's a neologism worthy of German.
To be clear, I do like 'outcounterexampled' a lot!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the best take. Computers don't care about this stuff. A computer could make a movie, but only a human can appreciate it. We're a good team, and that's ok.
For now. I wonder if we will ever get to the point where the computer starts doing mathematics that we just can't understand. Surely there must be some limit to what we can understand (like how a gorilla will never understand prime numbers, there are probably limits to our intelligence as well).
This bot posts a tautology (always true statement) every day. They aren't very useful. Sampling from all true mathematics is like sampling from all instruction sequences that don't crash. The important part of computer programming isn't finding valid instruction sequences, it's finding the useful ones that do what the customer wants.