mathisfun123

> A good answer does not means the formula used is correct.

yes it does. that's exactly what it means.

> "actual truth" obviously exists regardless of your ability to measure or perceive it.

a reasonable person would at least peruse the literature before making such strong claims as

> Either state your argument coherently so as to address my completely valid objection, or move on if you're not interested in having a discussion.

i'm not interested in educating you on thousands (literally dating back to plato) of years of scholarship/philosophical discourse on the topic of epistemology. that's not my responsibility because you are not paying me for this - typically people charge large amounts of money for this kind of work (uni professors are well compensated).

lucky for you others have done lots of work making this information available to you for the low low price of "reading". that's why i provided the link.

> Most models have relation to each other so it does not suffice to take one in isolation

You don't know what you're talking about (most people on here do not).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ansatz

Brother you're wrong and there's ample scholarship you can consult to correct your misunderstanding. The Wikipedia with sufficient citations is right there. Feel free to educate yourself.

> but actual truth

there is no "actual truth" - there is only what you can measure reliably

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

> It was completely wrong but the outputs were surprisingly close to reality.

that's not how physics works. epicycles weren't wrong. there is no wrong/right - modern scientists don't believe in platonism. physics is a collection of models which are empirically tested. if epicycles makes predictions to more decimal places than relativity then epicycles are "right" and relativity is "wrong".

now think about how this translates to LLMs...

> One is that AI will continue hallucinating in a manner that is not easy to verify, second is that AI will not be enhanced to produced more simplified amd robust outputs, and third that a human will be required to do that.

There is literally not a single shred of evidence to indicate either of your supposed eventualities. The core technology of an LLM is sampling from a distribution so there is literally no way to make it deterministically robust (only probabilistically).

Semantic compressor and decompressor

priesthood

Yes a seed round is how much A0 tape out costs. The entire seed round. Let me know how you plan to pay for A1, A2, B0, etc and then the full production run (and then do it again in 6 months when the arch changes).

Lol at my $job we have one token quota which can be used with all the frontier models.

> You seem like a bit of an asshole

i'm not an asshole for pointing out that your argument is by now a trope and also wrong <shrug>

> but I will say that a large amount of that activity is financed by demand from students in one shape or another

you couldn't be more wrong - tuition pays for almost none of researchers' salaries, neither phd students nor faculty.

does company A making product B claim that the product is robust and consistent? is this a serious question?

i have and i'm exactly saying that if it comes to pass one of them is wrong it's going to backfire. ie yes that's my exact point/bet.

> We still play chess, even though computers can do it better than we can, because we find it interesting

people are making this comparison so often it's borderline embarassing. yes we do and there's seemingly a possibility that math goes the way of chess. now answer this: do we award doctorates in chess? do people get paid to study and teach and publish on chess on the same scale that they do with math today?

of course in science/math it is but it's not okay if you're a business selling supercalifragilisticexpialidocious infallible intelligence.

With so many results in so many different areas no way they even remotely spot checked well enough.

Prediction: one of these is wrong and this (publicity stunt) will backfire.

Edit: don't tell me about lean. For lean to function as a proof certificate you need to represent the theorem correctly. Again: good luck doing that across such a broad swath of problems.

> A lot of people here are smart enough

they're really not because clearly their sole method of engaging with this discourse is projection.

> Being purely for the sake of improving human understanding

no matter what anyone tells you, there is absolutely no working mathematician that wakes up every day and goes to work based off that desire. it's not a priesthood, it's a job.

You're wasting your time - people here aren't smart/honest enough to engage with your reasoning. As someone who did math professionally for a long time, I agree with you. I think it has as much value as chess (a game we made up which we play for fun).

Can we ban glib just-so comments?

hn is full of people larping just like reddit

> They're intrinsic to humanity.

I have to daily remind myself that people on here probably haven't had a single liberal arts class (like philosophy or anthropology) because they're stemlords.

> But the virtues exist in every society.

And also not too bright. brother you're literally commenting on your own response to a post about how such a virtue is potentially absent in some society

It's amazing to me how ignorant this comment is. Someone is teaching you something about a culture you don't understand and you're chastising them (or condescending to an entire nation).

> No. These are virtues, not luxuries.

According to your particular ethics. Has it ever occurred to you that the ethics you have isn't universal but is simply an artifact of your culture?

in tech? really?

there's a large contingent of strange people that think apple's services business is a side-hustle.

no one is talking about that? we're talking about whether you need a license to use the law in your own defense?

Doesn't this indicate your "colleague" was a dbag to begin with and they were only paying lip service (literally) to being colleagues?

jesus christ the number of asinine contrarian comments here is unbounded apparently

> you cannot practice without passing the bar exam

you cannot represent other people in a court of law without passing the bar. you can absolutely read the law and represent yourself pro se.

> licensed individuals: medical doctors, journalists, electricians

first of all you don't need a license to practice journalism, the press credentials you're thinking are for the news agency itself. second of all doctors and electricians are licensed because there are material liabilities. you should read some more of that law that you're gatekeeping...

EDIT:

> News agencies and media organizations issue internal press credentials to verify a reporter's affiliation and identity, while official access credentials are provided by specific host institutions, government bodies, or event organizers.

https://2021-2025.state.gov/media-credentials-and-visa-infor...

EDIT2: it's hilarious to me that people here (again because of pure contrarianism and maybe anti-AI sentiment) are really arguing for a return to mathematical guilds. what's next? destroying all gutenberg presses?

EDIT3: freedom of the press is literally in the first amendment

> The chemical compounds of all kinds are also out there,

1. Lol but they're literally not

2. A sample of chemical compound and a piece of math don't share literally any ontological qualities - you might as well have tried to make a comparison between math and nude pictures of the President

> Why do so many people in this forum not understand the article

because hn (the culture) rewards (with fake points) being contrarian.