I suppose what it comes down to is, if OpenAI couldn’t be bothered to try and elucidate their results, or even try to separate nonsensical exploits from genuine proofs, I don’t understand why mathematicians shouldn’t treat all of it as worthless instead of doing unpaid PR work for them.
Yeah, and to be clear I’m unabashedly a humanist myself, but at this point in time I have to treat “Humanist” in org names as a red flag.
Like, in other words, I don’t think most mathematicians are particularly interested in building huge datacenters to brute-force compute quintillions of decimals of pi under current algorithms? Because the point is understanding, not mere knowledge? I dunno!
I’m not at all a mathematician and mostly bad at understanding things, but, is an unwieldy proof that’s barely comprehensible and might be relying on multiple layers of bugs and traps and whatever undefined edges of formal proof systems even a proof at all? Does it actually merit consideration outside of pure spite (understandable)?
poo poo pee pee gang
I mean, fair enough, but can you explain how that impacts your decisions? What does panpsychism imply in matters of ethics or epistemology? Does it matter that the air you breathe can be thought of as in some way conscious?
Is the Pope Catholic? If ever in doubt ask him about abortion and gay marriage.
WAITING FOR HER LIFE TO END SHE DESERVES HER DIVIDEND
Okay I have questions about the logistics of this that are not touched on in the article.
Namely, how do they synchronise cum
me when i get a captcha
Giving young children free access to Ayn Rand books is abuse
He’s racist for an amazing reason
Ah, so he is part of the broader eugenics community, what a surprise.
The irony being that the chatbot does seem to have access to a list of relevant, non-slop websites, or at least some sort of way to rank searches by reliability, which of course they would never implement in the human-usable search engines.
At this point, when I’m looking up something that hits me with pagefuls of links to barely relevant vibecoded scam websites, I’d rather ask a fucking chatbot. At least it’s usually (?) able to give me links to real websites. Very much a choose your flavour of infuriating slop situation.
“If you believe there’s low odds for doom, it’s a rational position.”
What! No it’s not! It’s low odds of an infinitely bad outcome! How have you managed not to actually learn anything worth learning from Pascal’s wager?
I don’t have hard data but I bet you a million gils that an overwhelming majority of movies have the same name as another movie. Let alone movies that use a pre-existing phrase as the title.
They literally do.
How is it confusing??? Do you only know about two movies?
I mean, I don’t know, my confusion comes from also seeing a lot of mathematicians react as if mathematics are over and that it sucks that the future is all about checking AI proofs. And I suppose it’s unpleasant when a sort of maybe authoritative entity comes out of nowhere and tells you the answer to your favourite problem is 42 and doesn’t elaborate. But I feel like I might be missing something as to why this is a big deal. (Apart from OpenAI’s shitty conduct, I mean.)