don_esteban

5 ms·

31.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Now, think about all the own goals the USA and Europe has made in the last couple of decades. And, btw, China actually does comfortably have the largest economy (PPP, i.e. the real stuff you can use), for over a decade.
32.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
You still have your blinders on. Where did I say that the treasure had to borrow money? It creates money out of thin air. What I implied is that creating too much money raises inflation and reduces its credibility, i.e. it can't do it
33.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
The problem with meddling is the unintended long term consequences. Did the historical record teach us nothing? Are you sure that meddling in Russian internal affairs would result in better outcome? Even if it results in the collapse of Put
34.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
To me it seems that you are ideologically opposed to anybody having the leverage over Fed, and believe Fed has overpowered magic. There is no point repeating what maxglute wrote above. > So you admit that the Fed has this power but they
35.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
> No Japan or China or anyone else who owns treasuries can not control the yield on the US Treasuries because that is controlled by the Fed. The Fed has near infinite power to intervene to make the treasury yields be what they want. No.
36.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Hm, maybe this is your misunderstanding: - the fiscal position (the amount of debt the US owes) does not change by Japan selling the US treasures to other (non US) party - but the party that bought the treasures from Japan will not be buyin
37.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
We are going in circles. Anybody with large enough holding of US treasuries has leverage over the US: Large selling of those treasures will raise the yield on them, which is the last thing the US in its current situation needs. Of course, s
38.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
1. US actually bought Yen with Euros, not with dollars. The time will tell whether that will be a good trade for them. 2. What do you mean by 'No it would not'? I am not sure what are you trying to say. If Japan sells US bonds (in
39.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Because Japan would sell its treasures to buy dollar with which to buy Yen, pushing the yield on US treasures even higher, speeding up the debt spiral. Similar as the credit-swap lines for the Gulf countries: They have enough treasures to s
40.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
If that was the case, that elaborate listing of all things that might look like a proof to a naive student, but are actually not proofs (and not even just partial results, but fundamental misunderstandings of what constitutes a proof) could
41.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Yeah, and Chinese (before that: Japanese) cars will always be crap. Times change, believing in your never ending superiority is foolish.
42.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
The thing is that an expert in the area does not need the detailed how-to guide/complete description of the process. Few hints here and there can help to get over the key hurdles, with most other steps either a general knowledge for th
43.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Actually, I think that the analogy with the steam engine is a very good one. Prior to the steam engine, almost all energy used by the human civilization has been generated by human and/or animal muscles. Yes, there have been other (wat
44.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
the fact that such things have to be explicitly in the prompt points to the fact that the underlying system is still far from where it needs to be (basically, lacks basic understanding what a proof is)
45.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Eh, some conjectures have counterexamples. This one might be one of those. ;-)
46.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Well, there are not that many proofs from 'The Book'. We are a bit ahead of time, currently I would settle for 'as easy to understand as possible' proof. Not a long, complicated, inpenetrable, mess, that Lean says is cor
47.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
You mean casualties among workers building it? Or casualties among the passengers traveling on it?
48.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
You can select for 'short proof', or 'elementary proof', or assign the 'cost' of the proof as a some combination of its length, the number and complexity of the new terms it needs to define, and so on. This mig
49.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
The mathematics is to a great extent about understanding of abstract structures. As humans, we prefer simple structures/proofs (I suspect that is to a great extent because those are easier to understand), and as such find elegance in s
50.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
It is quite typical that once in a decade genius is treated like a crackpot... (what was the name of the Austrian doctor that suggested washing you hands before surgery?) ... of course, the number of crackpots is overwhelming
51.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
No, if you have god-like powers via super-powerful AI, you don't need money. After all, at the end of the day, money is just a tool to motivate people. If you have other ways to motivate them (manipulation via AI, or just a brute force
52.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Eh, Russophobia is also funny, as it is typically applied to those that hate Russia, as opposed to those that fear Russia. "Putin's apologist" as a smear on those who reject the mainstream narrative about Ukraine war (even if
53.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
Whataboutism is a word invented to deflect any criticism of western hypocrisy. Like antisemitism, its overuse has rendered it toothless.
54.
by don_esteban 2mo ago
I did read OP's post much more generally than only about AI research. There are many research areas where (properly done!) negative results would be very valuable, but are not properly encouraged. I do agree that in a new area with too
55.
by don_esteban 3mo ago
You are assuming incompetence on the scientist saying that the branch from the left of A is a dead end. While nobody is perfect, there are numerous perfectly valid scientific negative results. You know, there exist things like impossibility
56.
by don_esteban 3mo ago
You are talking about a different thing, i.e. you have slipped in a level of abstraction that was not there before: In 'searching a path from A to B in a maze' language: The original statement was: (1) The branch to the left from
57.
by don_esteban 3mo ago
Imho this is still wishful thinking ... care to provide examples?
58.
by don_esteban 3mo ago
Now compare that to what the USA did in the same time frame. Pay special attention to people killed (either directly, or indirectly) outside of their own borders. Who should you be worried about?
59.
by don_esteban 3mo ago
Judging by the actions (all the wars, multiple genocides all across the world), the most psychotic religion is Christianity.
60.
by don_esteban 3mo ago
Maybe the best you can do is just don't meddle in other's internal affairs. Just think how would you feel if other countries interfered 'with all good intentions, of course' in the internal affairs of your country.

More ›