CrushItNerds519

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by CrushItNerds519 4y ago

   Nope. If you were to consider carefully enough the language example that I gave, you would see that it already refutes your speculation. Another way would be to apply your argument to humans, who have managed to be useful despite having bee
2. 2.▲
   by CrushItNerds519 4y ago

   This comment and many others speculate on the limits of ChatGPT based on assumptions about what ChatGPT does that are not quite accurate. In particular, ChatGPT does not simply output the “most semantically popular result”. That description
3. 3.▲
   by CrushItNerds519 5y ago

   There may be some linguistic benefits to the "epsilon" formulation when discussing subconvexity rather than Lindelof. For instance, I think "the output is eventually bounded by 24% of the input" sounds more natural than
4. 4.▲
   by CrushItNerds519 5y ago

   As you say, we now know that each standard L-function satisfies a subconvex estimate as its argument varies. This falls short of "solving the subconvexity problem" in two respects. The first, pointed out already by gavagai691, is