Or that chess is over because stockfish can easily beat any human player. Or that warehouses don't need workers now that we have forklifts.
Maaaybe.
On the other hand, proofs was the main thing that distinguished good mathemeticians. It was the way of sorting out who should be a math professor.
It's probably a bit of a blow for math professors. For almost everyone down the "food chain" though - who cares? I'd argue that mathematical thinking is still very useful, even if you offload the heavy lifting to power tools. Math teachers still need to exist. Math tests probably still make sense - you want to incentivise learning, and test to see who the brightest or most studious students are. Math will still be used for physics, economics, etc - no one actually cared about most of the new proofs anyway, it was just a fun tournament to pick math professors with a side effect of generating a bit new knowledge.
At some point, maybe humans don't need to make decisions. We can just sit in VR racks being fed and entertained by AI like we're in The Matrix or Wall-E, as they fill some age-old instruction to make the humans happy and healthy. But until then, humans still need to make decisions, and mathematical thinking makes us better at that.
The one that gets me is art, specifically sketching.
I sketch, really badly, and I enjoy the process of doing that. The fact that an AI can make a better picture is irrelevant. Photography can do the same. I still enjoy sketching.
But I don't have to make my living from sketching. If I did, I would be more concerned and looking at how that changes.
I can see how both things can be true: mathematics is not "over", but professional mathematicians are looking at the skillset that they have carefully cultivated over their career and realised that those skills are probably not what will serve them best in the years to come. Tomorrow's mathematicians are not probably not going to be the same sort of people as today's mathematicians.
Same as us software devs. Software development isn't "over", by any means, but Software Development as a profession is changing extremely rapidly and the skills that got us this far are probably not the ones we need for the next decade.
The process of creating mathematical proofs from scratch is itself a rather high form of art, so I personally care even though I’m not a mathematician, because I enjoy the cultural effects within science. A world without future inspiring stories like Yitang Zhang seems rather dull and gray in my view. And by the way, Stockfish did kill correspondence chess, the form of chess most similar to academic research, chess that was unproctored and untimed.
Kind of an odd statement to make. The ICCF (international correspondence chess federation) lost a good chunk of players but still maintains a decent base of active players. There's also many orders of magnitude more playing correspondence chess in local federations or on online sites which all offer correspondence like time controls.
Computers definitely changed it, because now the best players are simply those who are best at dealing with chess engines, but it's still very much alive. The games played there also regularly studied by high level over-the-board players because it provides as close as we can currently get to the objective assessment of things like openings.
For instance it's extremely interesting to see things like the fact that the King's Indian Defense does okay in correspondence in spite of all engines insisting white has a practically decisive edge after about 10 moves in most lines.
---
Of course there's an interesting nuance that 'back in the day' a good correspondence player was almost certainly a good chess player. Whereas now a days its a different skillset altogether. The currently top rated correspondence player is a 20 year old who started playing correspondence 2 years ago, with no title and no rating in normal chess.
And I think we may see something similar in math. I'd wager that, at least in the longrun, the skill set required to effectively apply LLMs to mathematics may have less overlap than would be expected with the skillset to make progress in mathematics in the 'traditional' way.
> At some point, maybe humans don't need to make decisions. We can just sit in VR racks being fed and entertained by AI like we're in The Matrix or Wall-E, as they fill some age-old instruction to make the humans happy and healthy. But until then, humans still need to make decisions, and mathematical thinking makes us better at that.
RSI will mean that you'll be in the VR rack sooner than you might think, assuming we unlock the good ending.
Nah, politics in shows is great. It's like CGI. It can really make a show pop if it's well thought out, subtle, and feels realistic.
People complain about it when it seems to be used as an excuse for a lack other aspects of the show, or it makes everything seem unrealistic because they were more keen on putting it in than actually caring about whether it was realistic or at least made things feel realistic to the viewer.
The OG Jurassic Park had lots of politics and lots of CGI. No-one complained about it, because it was well done. If they had a jerkily animated raptor judo flipping a t-rex for no other reason than the director thought it would be cool to include then people would be saying the CGI was awful.
Everything is political. If you think it's not, you're just benefiting from the status quo and blind to it.
Even ignoring that history loves to repeat itself, plenty of politics in all forms of media has aged excellently, and plenty of politics that haven't aged well are still insightful into the period of the piece.
"Everything is political" is the classic motte-and-bailey fallacy beloved by the most obnoxious politics pushers. The fact that it's impossible to remove all traces of politics from fiction does not excuse subjugating art to ideology. When people complain about "political" works they're complaining about works where the author appears to care more about how you vote than the story.
I’ve found when people complain about something being “political” 9 out of 10 times they’re complaining that they dislike the author’s politics.
The dictionary definition of “politics” (as in, what the word actually means) would support the statement that “everything is political” to be at worst a smidge hyperbolic. No motte, no bailey, no rhetorical fallacy.
Thing is, most art has ideology, it’s the weirdo reactionaries that try to pretend otherwise.
So is Casablanca art or propaganda? IMO 'art' and 'propaganda' are largely orthogonal concepts. Something can be art but not propaganda, propaganda but not art, neither, or both.
That's why old political writing is good - because the politics has been settled by now, most people won't argue 1984 was unfairly criticizing totalitarianism or Starship Troopers are too hard on fascism.
But new political writing is outrageous for half the people, because they disagree with it.
There's a striking difference between telling and tone deaf preaching and when people complain about politics they always, without fail, mean the latter.
The stance of "everything is political" itself is extremely tone deaf.
Implying it hadn't already fell apart in the Matt Smith era, where there was a season finale that made less sense than the end of Neo Genesis Evangelion (I think I'm talking about The Pandorica Opens, but it's honestly all a blur, and was at the time I watched it too). Moffat hyped up future episodes but could rarely deliver, RTD just hit you with a massive sucker punch on the 2nd or 3rd last episode and WOW.
Also implying that the wheels weren't kinda getting loose when 10ant said his final farewell at that (otherwise fairly underrated IMO) episode where the Master was hungry.
That might be detectable if they signed content contains focal-length metadata... but even then, some foresight and a collection of lenses would hide it.
> I will suggest that trying to change someone's mind by presenting them with rational arguments is never going to work to persuade them they're wrong.
> Many active gym people have pretty high BMIs but fairly low fat
I think this is greatly exhaggerated.
Yeah you can put on as much muscle as Arnold and have a FFMI of about 27 then maybe have a BMI of 34 if you have 20% body fat.
But a very gifted natty might cap out at maybe 24 with a BMI of 30 at 20% bodyfat. But let's be realistic. This is not "many active gym people". This is the guy winning the local strongman meet.
Yes a couple of years training for most people can add a couple of points to BMI but I think people exaggerate how much this is. Go look at a 20lb brisket at costco - you don't see people with that much extra muscle all that often.
I do agree to some extent, but really the overweight threshold for BMI is 25. And 30 for obese.
At 6 feet / 183 cm that it takes 184 lbs / 83 kg to be overweight. From what I could find, for regular gymgoers the typical weight for people around 6feet is 180-190lbs, which put many people around the overweight threshold. I am myself at 24.9, and while not skinny I am definitely in the skinnier half of the people at my local gym.
I very much disagree. Overweight starts at 25 BMI, and obese at 30. Most regular gym goers in my social circles maintain <20% body fat, and are classified as overweight based on BMI. In the US weightlifting is quite popular, and it’s not hard to gain enough muscle mass to classify as overweight. I’ve been “overweight” at 27 BMI going on >10 years now, with actual body fat fluctuating ~12-18%. I’ve had doctors tell me I need to lose weight because my BMI is too high, while I had visible abs. It’s a common theme among other casual weightlifters I know. I don’t think BMI is particularly useful for anyone that has done more than a year of basic barbell strength training cycle.
My completely made up rule is you get an extra point for every plate you bench (or squat etc). Its not a dramatic difference. If you bench 225 you’re not overwreight till 27 BMI, which iirc used to be the actual cutoff until they narrowed it.
Obese is hard. Overweight is easy if you walk, take the stairs, do the occasional pushup, and play something like hockey once week. Source: my entire life.
But specifically, it requires no gym time. Muscle mass is built with through reps not weight, and there are lots of non-gym-rat behaviors that do that. I'm not winning any comps.
Maybe users engage more with the flowery text? An accidental (or intentional) dark pattern would be that more tokens get used if you have to summarise. Or maybe it's just that many AI users like it (they like the AI to sound smart, or like to feel smart puzzling it out).
You can google "CPI price change graph by type good" to find which things have undergone real inflation vs real deflation. TVs, phones, toys, clothes, furniture, cars.
Everyone likes to say Homer Simpson lived like a king. He had a car that was so bad it would be illegal to sell new today, no cell phone, no netflix, no Uber eats, clothes were so expensive it was worth the SAHM fix them, pizza or Chinese takeaway were a luxury, not a lot of furniture.
People today eat so well that broke 30 year olds will order haute cuisine and say it's basically the same price as home cooking (OK it's roughly as big a rip off as maccas in Australia but still ... home cooking can be dirt cheap).
Maaaybe.
On the other hand, proofs was the main thing that distinguished good mathemeticians. It was the way of sorting out who should be a math professor.
It's probably a bit of a blow for math professors. For almost everyone down the "food chain" though - who cares? I'd argue that mathematical thinking is still very useful, even if you offload the heavy lifting to power tools. Math teachers still need to exist. Math tests probably still make sense - you want to incentivise learning, and test to see who the brightest or most studious students are. Math will still be used for physics, economics, etc - no one actually cared about most of the new proofs anyway, it was just a fun tournament to pick math professors with a side effect of generating a bit new knowledge.
At some point, maybe humans don't need to make decisions. We can just sit in VR racks being fed and entertained by AI like we're in The Matrix or Wall-E, as they fill some age-old instruction to make the humans happy and healthy. But until then, humans still need to make decisions, and mathematical thinking makes us better at that.
reply