YeGoblynQueenne

4 ms·

31.
by YeGoblynQueenne 10d ago
>> I know HN readers and posters just read numbers and can't be bothered to read, but please read the methodology before making any claims. This is unfair to HN readers all of whom but one did not post the comment you replied to.
32.
by YeGoblynQueenne 10d ago
>> the models generalize well only on tasks within a small neighborhood of the specific tasks they've been trained on, and even then with severe caveats. the frontier labs have developed a general recipe to teach models almost an
33.
The Association for Human Mathematics (AHM)(ahmath.org)
3 points by YeGoblynQueenne 10d ago|0 comments
34.
by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago
To be fair, what revolution were you expecting to see, exactly? You can 10x a "dashboard but with AI" app all you want but it's only ever going to be a "dashboard but with AI" app. And I note that nobody seems to be
35.
by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago
And he's called Terence, not "Terrance".
36.
by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago
>> If future AI systems will produce genuine proofs, logically correct and intelligible, like those produced by “master” mathematicians, it would still be incorrect to think that mathematics would have been “solved” as some say that c
37.
by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago
... marginalized people ... ... spaz on the floor ...
38.
by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago
Well. First they came for the testers. Then they came for the developers.
39.
by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago
>> How does one come up with such a string of words? By spending all day thinking about them instead of running a country.
40.
Suicidal Compassion: Utilitarianism at AI Companies Endangers Humanity(ai-frontiers.org)
22 points by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago|3 comments
41.
by YeGoblynQueenne 13d ago
Amazing. Comment upon comment, thread upon thread, failing to engage with the substance of the Field medalists' letter and instead going off on tangents about the privileges that mathematicians will lose and how they're bitter abo
42.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
The difference is that most software engineers don't care about bringing up a new generation to keep their field alive when they retire. Software engineers usually don't give a flying fuck for other software engineers, young or ol
43.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
Thanks. Regarding plagiarism, I agree that it is possible to check; I don't know how easy it is. But I do note that the mathematicians who complained that their work was plagiarised by AI did not seem to realise that they, themselves,
44.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
>> I’m no big AI cheerleader, but why don’t you try these models to see what they offer - they might suggest some things you haven’t thought of, or save you some time in your research. One reason not to try is to create an air gap bet
45.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
Don't you mean mass investment?
46.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
Oh, the patient is ill. Let's kill the patient.
47.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
>> I was apart of the "covid chess cohort" and got really into it for quite a few years. In that time, I also learned about what the chess culture was like pre-engine and post-engine, and I think you could argue that post-en
48.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
>> This sounds a lot to me like people in the 90's complaining that computers were destroying chess. Genuine question: who were those people saying that? I don't know that criticism. The criticism I know is from AI researche
49.
Grigori Perelman(en.wikipedia.org)
4 points by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago|1 comments
50.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
You're assuming too much from a single graph with vaguely named axes. I'll wait until there's more concrete information.
51.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
So you're not going to do it yourself and you want someone else to do it for you? Some mathematician that dedicated their life to understand mathematics must now toil unpaid and unwillingly to understand the AI slop proofs that you wan
52.
by YeGoblynQueenne 14d ago
>> Humans can then work on clarifying why it's true. Presumably you're a human. Are you going to do that?
53.
by YeGoblynQueenne 15d ago
>> And you’re seriously going with “don’t ask inconvenient questions” as an argument? Where did I say that? The conversation you seem to want to have doesn't seem to have any obvious use and you seem to want to debate a point I
54.
by YeGoblynQueenne 15d ago
>> Those same people are now given tools to produce works that they enjoy and can do pretty damn well at. It's the tools that produce the works, not the humans. >> This is a horrible perversion of the quote. What? The full
55.
by YeGoblynQueenne 15d ago
Do I really need to prove that humans have cognition? Or, more to the point, do you want to challenge that assumption?
56.
by YeGoblynQueenne 15d ago
This is no time to despair. It's the time to take a stand. If you don't want to see your discipline go the way of the dodo, then do something about it. I don't know what you should do because I'm not a mathematician. But
57.
by YeGoblynQueenne 15d ago
Why do I need a source? An LLM prompt does not "move to action", because an LLM does not act. People act, animals act, software doesn't act. Acting implies volition and volition implies cognition and if you think that LLMs ha
58.
Open Letter about the Mathathon(docs.google.com)
2 points by YeGoblynQueenne 15d ago|0 comments
59.
by YeGoblynQueenne 16d ago
That's a jingle fallacy. *Jingle-jangle fallacies are erroneous assumptions that either two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle fallacy); or two identical or almost identical things are different becau
60.
by YeGoblynQueenne 16d ago
>> Their final “product” is not just a standalone ML model. They don’t need your data just to “improve their products and services”. They build a whole ecosystem and infrastructure around gathering all the knowledge in the world. Incl

More ›