I don't really understand the rationale behind accepting change and knowing change is inevitable, but wanting any such change to be fully controlled every step of the way?
Honestly it is not that much different from the divine inspiration if you have ever experienced it.
I do not know how you view the world or walk through it but language in general is simply subject to interpretation to me, the arrangement of words for the sentence is inspiration in and of itself - though the majority of time it amounts to minimum jumps.
> This is another attitude I’ve noticed in AI enthusiasts: the AI never fails, the AI is never the problem, it’s always the human who failed the AI by not asking it properly.
I assume you have never used any tool ever? It is common knowledge by now that AI is not a one shot wonder in a lot of cases (weirdly so every argument seems use that as a precursor).
You are saying the equivalent of:
Failed to compile source code - oh shit the compiler is wrong not my source code
If you expect a "stochastic parrot" to be a one shot wonder, surprise you get what you looked for.
Here's a simple thought exercise:
You have a macro for generating a for loop that in X% of cases is correct, what is the X that is needed until it is practically useful.
The answer is not actually that straightforward, because typing it is far more cognitively complex that actually reading and verifying that it is a for loop.
Or another one that is far more relatable, what is the probability of accurate autocomplete that is needed for be useful? This is much easier to answer, as long as it is >0% it is useful for the small hits it provides, because checking is easy.
What does this mean? As long you have a better autocomplete using AI compared to the static analysis autocomplete you are already "better off". Again the simplest example, and at current stage this has long passed.
If you can't shape a tool to your workflow sorry but that's on you. You don't have to use the tool and that's perfectly fine as well. But that doesn't mean people have to hire you if there is someone who can use it and "performs better" (whatever this means).
“People are complaining that AI is pushing out this 100,000-line formal proof of some major conjecture. I don’t really see what harm this does because you can always ignore this if you want, and then you’re no worse off than before,” Borcherds said. “I think what people are getting upset about is they’re slowly realizing that they are dumb and somehow blaming this on AI, even though it’s not really AI’s fault.”
This is basically why I can't take any mathematician arguments at face value. It seems like the majority of them intertwine some sort of status game with their arguments.
I also realize the "status game" is needed for funding / grants, but that is irrelevant to AI/LLMs, for example, you can ask whether this was the right method to begin with although it "worked" in some way or sense prior to the release of AI/LLMs. To ask the world to change at their pace or at their whim is very unlikely to happen.
At least at the cheap plan level, for 3 or 4 pages AI is better than me at clear math problems. For longer problem or fuzzy objectives, I've seen small errors of bad decisions here and there.
The problem is that AI is very convincing and the text make sense but it's a wall of text that may include lemas, sublemas, theorems, citations and everything you expect in a real solution. But for now in long proof is difficult to be sure that there is no a tiny details that makes everithing invalid.
(My guess is that most of the AI proof in the Mathpocalypse are correct. I think 5 are retracted and 10 fixed, but I expect a few more error, but not too many.)
Meanwhile, in my opinions: Lean or it didn't happen.
Prep the community for what. Every human can make decisions and choices without care for another already.
They are perfectly happy with their choice. They already chose to ignore the papers and that's fine.
What is objectively true is by definition true. What one considers to be true is not necessarily objectively true.
You can chose to live under the "romantic" mathematics era if you so wish for it, we are temporary and our direct influence is at most a few generations. To force the future or that choice to anyone else, I'm sorry, but I rather be delusional than accept that (though obviously untrue). It isn't a choice up to you, at most you provide a path, but you have very little choice over what the future dictates.
You can be independent? But as the countries have found out, they have no firm rock to begin with.
Welcome to living among humans, where choices are made.
Every country made their choice, willingly or not, then lived by it for several generations. Now we have a generation of nationalists, we'll see how that ends up down the road for better or worse.
Is this what is expected of how to cite sources? Because if this is the expectation nobody does it.
There are two cases and only one is an issue for citations:
- Mononoke was directly consulted and not attributed
- Concepts were reinvented or used as a derivative (Sapling cited Mononoke and implements something similar)
For one I know Sapling, Git, and Jujutsu, but up to today I have never heard of Oxide or Mononoke and I am not exactly compelled to look up the research papers of any of them, at most I read through their high level documentation.
Sapling does a bit more than cite Mononoke. And Oxide was not involved in Mononoke's development. These are kind of details that would not be expected of a casual user. However, when valuations soar into the trillions, we can expect companies with dedicated writing staff to communicate attribution properly.
I won't get into how "fear of AI" is basically baloney and a manifestation of something else.
Let's just talk about "Stop AI companies". Let's take it literally and assume you were able to stop AI companies, what then? You think the government will stop developing AI? Heck if anything, all the core researchers will be instituted under government black projects.
Or let's take it to mean stop addiction to social media. Every single person makes choices in their lives, maybe it's time to actually start responsibility? Social media ban? It's crazy how people only seem to think about "living", every human has another jolly old state, called being dead as a rock, maybe it's time to let that do it's thing instead of forcing one onto everyone.
if we can lower the pricing by not 50% but 10x, then I think it would be something people want. we are taking the bet that OSS models will take a huge chunk of market share not just in LLMs but in multimodal as well
reply