edanm

30 ms·

421.
by edanm 2y ago
I've seen one Twitter thread from a mathematician who used an llm to come up with a new math result. Both coming up with the theorem statement and a unique proof,iirc. Though to be clear, this wasn't a one shot thing - it was iirc
422.
by edanm 2y ago
This is wrong in many ways, and is a "talking point" I really hate. I'm not a fan of military detention without trial, but it is time-limited and has to be proven to an Israeli court to be necessary for security reasons. >
423.
by edanm 2y ago
1. I'm going to state outright that I don't think rounding up Palestinian civilians and shooting them is happening. Israel does a lot of things I disagree with and there are, I'm sure, many war crimes being committed, but rou
424.
by edanm 2y ago
I mostly agree with your analysis, but just to drive home a point here - I don't think that algorithms to beat Chess were ever seriously considered as something that would be relevant outside of the context of Chess itself. And obvious
425.
by edanm 2y ago
First of all, the way "well, they voted for them" is sometimes used is morally repugnant. It's true that Hamas is the current elected government and military of Gaza, with all that implies, but that says nothing morally about
426.
by edanm 2y ago
> Why fund them? Because for whatever reasons, in his later years, Arafat and the PLO were becoming tired of endless conflict and far more diplomatic and open to negotiation. Whatever else you think, let's be clear-eyed about the hi
427.
by edanm 2y ago
How, exactly? Israel was in negotiations with the official representative of the Palestinians, the PA, and they refused all offers and walked away from the negotiations. The opposite approach happened in Gaza - Israel just unilaterally walk
428.
by edanm 2y ago
> The invasion of Lebanon and Syria by Israel shows that it's not about the hostages. There are no hostages in Lebanon or Syria. It's about acquiring more land. It doesn't show any such thing. The invasion of Lebanon was b
429.
by edanm 2y ago
> Over time, industry participants will continue to expand rent seeking practices and because the demand for health is almost perfectly inelastic, they can continue to get away with it. > I'm a rabid defender of the free market,
430.
by edanm 2y ago
> business people trying to replace one guy like myself with 3 Indians has been a reality for 10 years at this point, and amusingly they keep failing and never learning their lesson. /off-topic What is the "lesson" that bu
431.
by edanm 2y ago
Ah yes, you're right of course, and I haven't really thought about it in this way before - that either you're based on "real world" geometry, in which case things are a bit harder to prove but make sense, or you&#x2
432.
PydanticAI vs. LangChain: A Tale of Two AI Frameworks(newsletter.hipposys.ai)
3 points by edanm 2y ago|0 comments
433.
by edanm 2y ago
Yeah, I was talking about an inner product space. If you want to prove Pythagoras's theorem on Euclidean space, aren't there about a thousand proofs from that? Including the semi-original from Euclid? I assume it was proved there.
434.
by edanm 2y ago
Normally you define the dot product (or inner product more generally) with a few conditions that it has to satisfy, and then define two vectors to be orthogonal if their dot product equals 0: <u,v> = 0. Then Pythagoras's theorem
435.
by edanm 2y ago
> The fact that there are only about 30 hackers in NYC says that people don't want to sign up. I am quite sure there are many more than 30 people who saw your post at least once and would be interested. FYI, I'm a very regular
436.
by edanm 2y ago
Look at the article on Zionism. I'm Israeli so take my view of it with a grain of salt, but it reads as incredibly biased to me. And even if you think I'm wrong or can't be trusted - I suggest comparing the version of it no
437.
by edanm 2y ago
That's why it's a meaningless statistic. Because zero net worth is the status many people are in when young - which makes sense, you haven't had time to build any net worth! And negative net worth happens when you take on deb
438.
by edanm 2y ago
> You think I'm being flip, I'm actually making an incredibly cogent point that you continue to miss, just as you missed the point of the person you replied to originally. I think it's a bad approach to assume that you&#x
439.
by edanm 2y ago
Let me clarify. First, I'm not from the US. I completely agree with you that their healthcare system seems incredibly broken. That, however, is not what I was referring to - I was talking about the system of laws, of democracy, etc. Th
440.
by edanm 2y ago
Ok yes. I agree with your summary of our positions. (Except that I think it's not really "widespread approval", it's just a very vocal bubble that gets amplified online.)
441.
by edanm 2y ago
Maybe. What do you think we disagree about? Open to hearing your POV.
442.
by edanm 2y ago
I agree with most of what you wrote as hypotheticals, I just disagree it describes things as they are. I don't know why you are so eager to think people don't have agency or can't influence society. So many things change all
443.
by edanm 2y ago
> If this starts to break down then the law is failing. The fix isn’t to convince people that following the law is inportant, the fix is to show people that the law offers a viable notion of justice, whatever that might entail. I agree.
444.
by edanm 2y ago
> Society did precisely what you say it didn’t do. As polluting industries arose, society decided what to do about it. For a long time it was nothing. Then some restrictions, generally increasing over time. The fact that restrictions wer
445.
by edanm 2y ago
> If legality is determined based on what's beneficial to the rich and powerful, then this is equivalent to saying "most importantly, does it benefit the rich and powerful?" which is, of course, the point of the person you
446.
by edanm 2y ago
> do you? Are you open to be convinced of the opposite of your view on this issue? Yes, always. But I think it's a pretty high burden of proof to convince me that murder is OK, or that it should be celebrated. > I think you are w
447.
by edanm 2y ago
> My entire point here is that there are some kinds of unjust killings which are legal, and that the disparity is heavily skewed such that the kinds that tend to be done by rich and powerful people are the kinds that are legal. I think y
448.
by edanm 2y ago
> Whether it is legal or not is irrelevant. You are entering into a conversation about morality. The law does not dictate morality, as much as it can morality dictates the law. There are various ideas about morality. But I think even in
449.
by edanm 2y ago
> Please explain the difference, in terms of how it should affect my opinion of the person who carries out the act. Sure. > A factory boss decides to release some toxic pollutant. They know that it will result in some number of deaths
450.
by edanm 2y ago
You're using the word "deliberately" wrong when talking about things like air pollution. Pointing a gun and shooting at someone is quiet a different thing than is causing air pollution. Are people who smoked next to other peo

More ›