3 ms·
Crazy take. Whatever justification existed before exists now. Why is generation of proofs justified but not understanding? What's the point of a proof if no one
by ccppurcell 16d ago
Crazy take. Whatever justification existed before exists now. Why is generation of proofs justified but not understanding? What's the point of a proof if no one understands?
And anyway a mathematician's lifetime salary is basically nothing. I think total worldwide mathematics budget is less than a tenth of a percent of GDP. Meanwhile, openai cumulative loss stands at tens of billions?
- faitswulff 16d agoKnowledge is for the machines, you see; we are simply here to tend to their electrons. At least for now.
- kurtis_reed 15d agoWhatever justification for lamplighters existed before exists now?
- ramblerman 15d agoI guess there is a bit of a realization from the laymen (and I'm speaking as a member of that group) that a lot of these problems are toy problems. It's clear of Fermat's last theorem. But I figured that the Millennium Prize Problems (of which there are only 10) would have some real spillover into either physics or chemistry. Yet when one of them gets solved, it seems to be that the argument is, "yeah but not like that". Imagine if an AI solved cancer, or a vastly cheaper way to get into space, we wouldn't react like that.