pfdietz

5 ms·

1.
by pfdietz 5d ago
You're demonstrating a completely unhinged lack of understanding of the function of a market economy, and it looks like you are buying into the ridiculous Labor Theory of Value there. I apologize if my response didn't correspond t
2.
by pfdietz 5d ago
Effective at doing the jobs they were hired to do: produce and operate vastly improved launch vehicles (in the case of SpaceX). None of those other goals are in the remit of a company in a market economy. You might as well be complaining t
3.
by pfdietz 5d ago
And even if the companies are "gambling" (and what company doesn't do that) it doesn't mean the gambling is irrational.
4.
by pfdietz 6d ago
That's abuser logic.
5.
by pfdietz 6d ago
Your attempts to insult what they are doing doesn't show they did anything wrong, but it does impeach the validity of your own argument.
6.
by pfdietz 6d ago
You can reach any conclusion you want if you assume others are behaving irrationally. But why should I assume they are wrong instead of you being wrong?
7.
by pfdietz 6d ago
If others are willing to pay more, that a signal that more value is created if the resource goes to them rather than to the more price sensitive customers.
8.
by pfdietz 6d ago
What abuse? Responding to supply and demand fluctuations isn't abuse, it's the proper operation of the market.
9.
by pfdietz 8d ago
For more, see these books. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winning_Ways_for_Your_Mathemat... https://web.archive.org/web/20230307045844/https://www.cs.st...
10.
by pfdietz 8d ago
Or perhaps the criticisms are objectively unhinged and are so down voted without having to invent a conspiracy.
11.
by pfdietz 8d ago
There certainly are such proofs. Even for simple decidable theories we have very large lower bounds on decision complexity (like double exponential), which implies large lower bounds on the function from "length of theorem statement&q
12.
by pfdietz 8d ago
When you descend into conspiracy theorizing to defend your prejudices, it's time to stop and reconsider.
13.
by pfdietz 8d ago
As the famous British mathematician Alfred North Whitehead wrote 111 years ago, "Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them." This now includes the proving o
14.
by pfdietz 8d ago
Mathematical ideas and proofs are not IP.
15.
by pfdietz 8d ago
I'mn talking about math research. Of course you can test things: does the formalized proof check? This is what makes automated math such an attractive target for AI.
16.
by pfdietz 8d ago
I'd like to hear how your comment isn't irrelevant noise, then. How does one implement these grand ideas except by state action? Otherwise, people will do what people will do, including proving theorems by machine.
17.
by pfdietz 8d ago
That's some prime gaslighting you're doing there.
18.
by pfdietz 8d ago
It feels like the scene from Blazing Saddles where Mel Brooks' character says "We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen." If the math community was previously not entirely aligned with what society was expe
19.
by pfdietz 8d ago
Let's figure out how to use the iron fist of the state to keep people from doing things the math establishment doesn't like? Yeah, that's really great for humanity. Just super.
20.
by pfdietz 9d ago
A world of cheap AI makes research available to anyone who can afford to run the AI, in a similar way to how ubiquitous cheap computing hardware has made software development possible at the personal level.
21.
by pfdietz 9d ago
Tao's blog is a nice example of human interpretation of math. He explains in an understandable but rigorous way beyond what would just be in a journal paper (or the output of an AI).
22.
by pfdietz 10d ago
Those plans were only sensible if launch costs could be greatly reduced. It ended up that the government-contractor axis wasn't able to reduce launch costs, not due to technical reason, but political and institutional ones. There had
23.
by pfdietz 10d ago
People think rockets use tremendous amounts of fuel, but a Falcon 9's fuel is only slightly more than half the weight of the fuel in a fully fueled 747. There's also a lot of oxidizer (about 2.5x as much as the fuel) but LOX is v
24.
by pfdietz 10d ago
Specifically: bearish on LLMs generally, not bearish on LLMs for pure math.
25.
by pfdietz 10d ago
Now estimate how much that propellant will cost per kg of payload to orbit. The problem with expensive launch in the past wasn't due to propellant cost.
26.
by pfdietz 10d ago
> someone will come up with the bright idea of serialized novels again You mean, like on Reddit? ;)
27.
by pfdietz 11d ago
I understand it. I just consider it a bullshit take that has nothing to do with the reality of mathematics. There's never been such a consideration that one should not work on a problem that someone else is working on or has worked on
28.
by pfdietz 11d ago
The "moon landings didn't happen" conspiracies are, of course, inane, but they come from an understandable place. If moon landings really did happen, how could they just have stopped? There's a disconnect between the e
29.
by pfdietz 11d ago
That's a very bad take. Rocket costs are not driven by physics, they're driven by more mundane issues, like single-use hardware. The cost floor dictated by cost of propellant is remarkably low.
30.
by pfdietz 11d ago
> spiritually Going back into space will require doing so with a hard nosed commercial mindset. Things on that scale are done because they are profitable, not because of putatively higher minded considerations. I think our collective sp

More ›