bemtevi

Pure math may be that, but I was referring to the human beings behind pure math.

Because the best way to do that is in a sufficiently minimal enviroment so people can just think and go their own way. Being bombared with machine-generated results is antagonistic to this process.

I love solving problems. But I don't enjoy sharing my solutions with the way the world is today. My comment was directed towards the "sharing" aspect, not the making aspect. I still solve problems on my own and learn on my own but I'm not a fan of the way the world has become.

Seems like this is more a bash against the GPL.

> As soon as you leave this club and want to pull code from a GPL-licensed project into your MIT-licensed project, well, sorry, too bad for you.

So what? The GPL seems like a decently fair way of saying that "I'll make a contribution, as long as everyone else using it keeps making that same open contribution".

Personally, if I wanted to release open source code, I wouldn't want it to fall under an MIT license, because then some corp could simply take it and not make the same contribution back.

The author claims this "harms developers of non-GPL-licensed FOSS software" - give me a break. Does it break their legs? Give them the flu? It doesn't harm anyone. Maybe just inconveniences them. Cry me a river.

I don't see why it would. It might make education more efficient like a factory in some ways, but I simply don't see why it would aid in learning. At least, from my experience as a student, here are some observations:

1. Computers have allowed me to gather more information, access more journals, more results from around the world, but what really seems to matter in learning is just sitting down with a tiny bit of material like one book and REALLY understanding it.

2. Computers make things more distracting because while they make typing up reports, proofs, and assignments more efficient, there's actually just too much information. What really seems to help is having LESS information so there's some space to just think and work things out.

The fact is, what computers do is help you keep up with other people in the field, so they might accelerate progress at the research level, but what they don't do is help you become a rigorous, independent thinker.

Academia in fact has always been an uneasy tension between the two: building capable individuals and getting results and money for progress. Computers help with the latter - they certainly impede the former.

The problem is, why even produce something greater now when someone is just going to clone it with AI? And moreover, what differentiates software now will no longer be the care put into it but marketing and trends. The highly commercialized nature of software means that there's not much point now in doing anything except getting there first and exiting with a decent nest egg.

It's simply because AI has no motivation, no care, no desire to say anything, so how can it burn with a passion to make its point?

I personally would never participate in this. I think clarifying proofs generated by a machine is a contemptible way to spend time. A lot of people will ask, isn't the purpose of math to generate results? I don't think so. I think the purpose of math is to gain a precise and clear understanding of the world through a shared human practice of math - human only.

I know most people here will disagree because most people here are at the top of the consumption food chain of just consuming the latest and greatest of whatever the world produces, so why not have more to consume? But slowly the joy is being sucked out of the world by AI for those not at the top and being replaced the narcissistic activity of enjoying superficial sensory stimulation in a vacuum.

A rather sad state of affairs...

> I would generally expect this state to resolve quickly to "Proven and Verified" (the tendency in mathematics historically has been for complicated first-proofs of results, followed by significant reductions in proof complexity as new tools and definitions become available),

A bit of an oversimplification, I think. Definitely there are some simplifications, but I wouldn't say really significant to the point where "resolve quickly" follows, along the lines of what you said.

Most complicated math is still nearly as complicated as when it was invented. Simplifications to presentation maybe, and some reduction in the proof difficulty yes, but not to the point of being significant in the way you describe. Any modern result that has been around for 20 years likely hasn't undergone a serious simplification, for example.

I'm always eager to learn. Which ones? I mean aside from maybe the really dangerous ones. Because I've traveled a bit, to different countries over the years and I've never encountered crossing a border in the same league as the United States.

Not saying that they don't exist - but I just haven't encountered it.

That doesn't make any sense. What do you mean by 'artificial'?

Humans 'appreciated' 'beauty' for centuries. Obviously, we've evolved the ability to do so and the word 'beauty' carries meaning for people and is an effective way to describe their sensory experience and interpretation.

Attemtping to negate the experience of beauty and appreciation through a poorly-formulated behaviouralist remark is akin to a teenager saying that they can't touch a table because touching is just repelling and we never actually touch anything because it's just repellent forces. In both cases, the new formulation is completely irrelevant and doesn't remove the actual meaning from the word.

I'm guessing that the motivation of your phrasing is rooted in a psychological trick that you're using because you're miserable with the fact that other people are experiencing joy through beauty and you've either not the time or not the inclination to do so. A sad perspective indeed.

I tried both and both are interesting. Conceptually the brush approach seems more intuitive for some types of maps. Like making a few rooms that come out into an open space or some oddly shapped stuff like pyramid rooms, etc. I dunno, both are interesting and once you got used to the approach, the additive system works pretty well.

I don't know if this is really true. For example for browsers, operating systems, etc. you still need to trust the vendor and have a lot of people use it, testing it all the time, to make it somewhat secure. And you need someone to maintain it. So I'd rather trust a binary blob OS like MacOS than some AI coded junk.

I haven't entered the U.S. in some years now and I don't plan to any more. Unlike going to any other country, it just feels icky to go there and dehumanizing to go through any airport in the U.S.

It's rather sad too because I like lots of places there and there's lots of cool stuff but with what's happening, I'm making an active effort to avoid it.

> This technology is being peddled by terrible people who are rich and whose goal is to get richer.

I don't really agree that this is the problem. I think it's much more than human nature interacting with powerful technology creates these "terrible people" and there's no way to not have this "terrible" set of phenotypes expressed when AI exists.

Let's keep in mind though that mathematics is a sequence of logical inferences which doesn't fight against anything whereas a cure for cancer is a fight against errors and entropy.

One thing they can't share is the commons (enviroment) they've taken advantage of and destroyed and the CO2 they've put in the atmosphere. That common wealth was taken away and it's hard to get it back.

The difference is context. With human cheating, the intent is usually a bit easier to spot.

It would be cool if we could run this thing on Apple Silicon macs. I'm getting tired of MacOS and would love an alternative to Linux.

Capitalism means we can only take actions that benefit individuals in the short term (so, arms race). And the large population means inertia in that incorrect direction.

Seriously? China is one of the top polluters and it's a horrible country to live in. No one is solving climate change. The problem is worse than ever. None of the serious problems are being solved. Only made worse.

> The doomers keep moving the goalposts

Maybe some. But I believe the doom is already here. It's already sufficient. Regardless of whether there are jobs or not. Because AI coding sucks.

The world may be livable in terms of basic needs but for someone growing up today, it's depressing.

There's no need to move the goalposts. What we have is already the doomsday scenario enough.

I do think so, but like you said, messily.

I think we're already at a doomsday for population. The inertia of such a large world running on capitalism means we can't do anything about our problems any more, so I feel the bullet has been effectively fired. We're just watching it in slow motion.

If you're going to regret not having all luxury, then don't move. I moved to a country with much less luxury and I don't regret it at all because not having to run the rat race is far more important to me than having a dishwasher and a dryer. There's the sun, after all.

Are you serious? I LOVE programming as a hobby. In fact is IS my hobby. And I HATE AI, hate it with a passion. The world was so much more interesting when people were doing it by hand. Now it's ugly.

Lots of things can happen. Usually people can adapt. But some things that happen are disastrous. A natural disaster is one of those things. So is AI. If you were doing research in the 70s, things changed and were exciting. Now things are changing and they're depressing.

At least if someone *else* did it then you could potentially join them or their community. I've done that before. If AI does it then it just doesn't have the same impact, plain and simple and most people just want to do their own thing instead of accept help because they don't *need* help any more.

I don't think any of this makes much sense. The problem that this article ignores is that people build different things with AI, not the same things but faster. They build more superficial things, more throwaway things, things that are tailor-made for chasing the buck, and it just doesn't feel genuine or interesting.

It was much the same with search. Google search allowed us to find things faster at first...but over time websites responded to that and started doing SEO crap. Now almost every search results in a billion websites that say the same thing, but shallowly. Yes you can still find some gems but was it worth it?

AI makes things faster, but now it means we can target superificial needs very quickly...and so a new breed of crap software will be built with it. As long as there's a dollar sign at the end of the road.

It depends. Do we want to be a society that produces things we can be proud of or do we just want to produce things?

Do we want to put care into things, not because it's always immediately applicable but because it helps support our integrity and mindfulness of human beings, or do we just want to get things done?

I'd rather it be the former, and that's why I believe in code quality. But if you're just after the bottom line, by all means, LLM-code away and ignore quality.