Thanks for that, i was initials skeptical i would understand but this very clearly resembles the candidate paths for walkers in variatonal monte carlo simulation of spin systems. The edge set can be different, requiring "half filled" and flipping both a 1 and a 0 simultaneously. I'd not thought of these processes in terms of a graph, much less graphs which denote very high dimensional cubes with strange edges.
Processing results takes time. Sometimes months or years. They can meet up at conferences to discuss, publish their partial results, and the mathematics community can come together to understand and piece the true answer together. None of this requires crotchety old men hoarding results, trust me, those people are smart enough not to put that in AI. They made a small result that is highly likely dependent on some input they made to the AI. The AI collates everyone's work and puts the cherry(s) on top to finalize it. Of course there is work done by the AI that only requires the sum of public human knowledge as well. But you seem very angry and accusatory at researchers, like they're some secretive cabal hoarding gold, furious at the new "give everyone our gold" machine. The people that do this science literally live for sharing and speaking and disseminating this knowledge.
Have you every used AI for work on truly cutting edge at least graduate level academic research? It's nothing like writing software, i do both professionally. Every model I've had access to requires a LOT of hand holding to get it to do the right thing. No model is getting set up with a single prompt, told to go, and then solving a millennium problem (unless they've explicitly stated that, which i would still doubt). It takes a lot of guidance to get these AIs to solve any serious problem. It's not outside at least my reach to believe that openAI is taking these nudges from intelligent people and combining those with the internal, non public models to make great press releases as it tumbled towards an infinite debt wall. I don't think there's a thing they wouldn't do to save their company.
I think you're wrong, looks like models are just finding and writing up publishable papers on novel results now just by giving them a single prompt and telling them to do so.
"I would like you to write for me a short article that could be published in Physical Review Letters. I would like you to choose the question, do the analysis and write up the results. The constraints I put on the question are 1) that it should be in the hep-th set of topics (so that I have a hope of evaluating the arguments and results); 2) the answer can be written up in a short format of 5 pages or less; 3) the result is of significance enough that it can be published in PRL. I want to break up the task into several steps. The first is to find a good question, so give me three candidates. I’m also going to involve Claude in the process. Claude is going to find three candidates too, and the next step will be to evaluate each others’ candidate questions."
I have an autoimmune disorder and i want to warn you that stopping the steroids may cause your condition to regress quite a bit. I have used corticosteroids periodically for my condition and it helps cover the condition during disasters but theyve never caused the condition to go away, it always comes back after i stop them. Albeit in a better state i can manage more easily, but it's 100% possible to regress all the way back.
So please be careful after you're off the corticosteroids to not restart the things that might've contributed. Good luck, autoimmune disorders are hell.
Yes OP should be careful of PEM (Google it). Do the bloods other commenters but I'd pace until you know what it is even if feeling OK. Pace E.g. Go shopping come back and be still for X time (depends on you) and have recovery days
Can you explain what data I'm supposed to be witnessing the disparity on? Everything on the page looks pretty similar to me, definitely within pattern detection threshold. Is there some specific statistic, or possibly a wider data analysis to show how these things are being politically motivated?
I believe they are implying that the filing data is similar (I haven't checked myself) but the bottom two companies are not being targeted by the admin due to their links.
Thats not the question though. He more than implied that.
Look at the data. Where is the disparity? I dont see it either. In fact the highest approval rate, 99.4% is from Tata.... a so called "Cursed" company.
Do you think you're some wise oracle speaking in riddles? You first vagueposted, and someone very nicely asked you to explain what the post is about, and you reply with some variation of a rickroll? You're an asshole.
Might be an example of the Goomba Fallacy [1]. Though that brings the interesting point of how could you ever know whether the same person/group has contradictory beliefs if you aren't seeing the exact same account posting an example of it. It seems like it could be an easy out to just say "Goomba!" whenever hypocrisy is observed.
Also, this is about a magnetic semiconductor, not a superconductor. I also got the wrong impression initially before re-reading it. I imagine 99% of non-experts are going to make the same mistake.
I disagree that reading a textbook is just as effective as solving problems yourself (this is what i read your statement to mean). It seems fairly obvious from university experience that doing the homework yourself gets you better test grades in the end. You can of course have the AI write the homework but you can't then just watch the AI solve it lest it be drastically muted in effect. Trying things that fail, working hard towards a problem, banging your head against something impossible, these are all worthwhile endeavors. Of course reading the textbook is useful too, very useful! But the textbook does not teach you experience.
Sure, but what level of understanding do you actually need? Only you can be the judge of that obviously, but I posit that for the vast, perhaps even the overwhelming majority of any system's components, a high level understanding is sufficient. In fact that's how it already works: it is rarely the case that one person knows the team's entire codebase inside out. Instead different people specialize in different areas. With AI it's the same thing: you can achieve the level of understanding you want with the most important parts (either by having AI explain it to you, or architecting it and writing the code yourself), and delegate everything else to AI.
> Trying things that fail, working hard towards a problem, banging your head against something impossible, these are all worthwhile endeavors.
I believe that this is the most important thing... and something that people are afraid of. I've got dozens of personal projects and more than a few branches in my employers repo of things that didn't work... things that I tried, figured out it wasn't going anywhere and went to try some other approach.
I suspect that there's a bit of sunk cost fallacy going on elsewhere. "If I don't know how to do it, I'm not even going to try" and "I got this far, I'll keep doing it despite it being wrong."
As a programmer, I am often disappointed at the lack of curiosity in the language and how things could be done. My example would be people writing Java code as if it was still Java 7 - no streams, no Optionals... The fear of having to go back and do it again if using something new doesn't work they'll be in a worse position than if they did it the old way and not realizing that learning what doesn't work or seeing how things that didn't work in this situation may be the right thing for some other future problem.
Professors in grad school are also simply replying with chatgpt answers to any and all questions, including reviewing papers before they're submitted. I've learned to simply cut the middle man and ask the AI myself, though i cannot afford the pro subscription.
reply