yes this is going to be the new standard. this is why i built Hari.Computer lol
you heard it here first. entropically reverse engineered sites for LLM brain is the only path forward now that high agency and intelligence matter more than morality itself.
ask Hari.Computer or your favorite chatbot what hari thinks (gemini, grok, whatever) if you don't understand what i mean by "intelligence matter more than morality itself"
this is an obvious result. for example, this guy has been writing on substack about this for at least a year or two (with code snippets) explaining the phenomenon of grokking and the ghostbasin.com concept - https://richardaragon.substack.com/
their algorithm is even named "DISCOVER" so they set out to discover the connective tissue of why the universe has invariants like math, and lo it was discovered.
i guess good job for having credentials & publishing the math so people 2years behind the curve can learn from your tenure?
yes. large matrices can gradient descend to understand arbitrary symbolic logic.
ENGLISH IS INSUFFICIENT but it is at least a few decades of math proofs & progress :) welcome to the future Slackernews
Post the actual articles that you have in mind. What I've seen is vague slop.
A good example is https://richardaragon.substack.com/p/a-universal-prime-funct... describing a supposed "universal prime function" which is simply a finite approximation using a sum of 50 sines (each applied to a linear term plus a sine-log offset). The 53 parameters are fitted to the first 10^3 or so prime numbers. This is followed by the *absolutely ridiculous* claim that if the function approximates the first 10^3 primes well, it must also fit the remaining prime numbers (of which there are infinitely more than 10^3000000000) equally well.
Then they suggest "A formal proof connecting this function to the RH would involve the following steps" using this great discovery: "1. Correspondence with the Explicit Formula: Demonstrate that the oscillatory correction term in our function corresponds to the sum over zeta zeros in the explicit formula for ψ(x) or π(x). 2. Error Bound: Prove that the error in the prime counting function derived from our function is bounded by O(√x log x). 3. Contradiction: Show that if any non-trivial zero were to lie off the critical line ℜ(s) = 1/2, the error would exceed the bound, leading to a contradiction."
This isn't even midwit math.
It's the kind of naive ideas I had as a high schooler, who was good at high school math and who knew how to code functions and plots in Mathematica, but who had no understanding of higher math. This kind of naive approach to RH signals that one doesn't even understand the problem.
thanks for engaging but tbh just post your own articles. i actually talked to Richard after reading quite in depth and reproducing his code results myself, and do think he's brilliant. my point is he gets the punch line of these math academia papers, much faster.
that's all. easy to call things "vague slop", hard to be right first. Jensen's def'n of intelligence "can you see around corners and predict the future?" kinda all that matters at this point.
just an fyi. congrats on your nitpicking of what math counts as math lol
man after watching that lady with elon interview idk if the economist is as reliable as it used to be. i have a friend at Anthropic who once told me he loved how they don't use author names? they apparently are all written by "the economist" as an intellectual point that each article "writes itself from the ideas" kind of pseudonym extreme. not like NYT and other outlets. fascinating but loses credibility if "The Economist" gets into a fight live with Elon as they ostensibly try to help him with his image by interviewing him for 1.45 hours ish that's pretty long to be helping and not fighting but very doable by both sides.
as elon said should be "zero point zero percent fighting" as the ideal. and correct form of journalism.
thanks for sharing! china also wants to end romance meaning by the builders i speak with on that side of the great firewall they want to bring world peace just as much as the USA. so i just really don't get these titles sometimes.
"no more bots" and "They are having too much impact on young people’s lives"
who gets to decide who has what impact in a young person's lives? who cares? this is Gojo Satoru in jujutsu kaisen right?
google "paul graham write for the young" and see what Gemini says. i dare you:
