random3

> Have you proof read what you wrote?

yes, but not in a meaningful way

> With your lack of specificity for the word "thinking", you're casting a rather broad argument;

that's intentional— specific = snowflake → broad = cattle. Same goes for craft vs at-scale manufacturing.

Also Ford was right about horses. Who's the horse now? I've been saying it from the horse perspective too for a while https://x.com/clehene/status/1768411925057347822

At the end of the day, your thoughts are important to everyone else but the "market"— you, your mom, etc. But the market doesn't care about your reasoning and hence can be "irrational" longer than you can be "right".

Also note that rational/irrational is a reasoning aspect. Automating it was on Aristotle's mind too.

Your argument is like Terrence Tao’s yesterday for Math 2.0 - “don’t you want to understand your cancer treatment?” Simple answer “I couldn’t give a flying f**” you give a series of examples that span over 100 years, and imply that the progress over the last 6-12 months is just another instance. It’s a contrarian ignorance, but in reality nobody cares about snowflake thinking except your family, friends and art lovers. That’s why Etsy crafts are irrelevant compared to steadily improving cheap quality you get for the most products they you rely on every day - none of them depend for production on someone’s “craft” it’s simple economics driving them instead. Realize that the process happens now for thinking - and useful to distinguish hubris from reality.

you took a quote of a snarky comment, assumed it a correct reproduction, and then suggested it's the result of imitating adults along with a (sad) state of affairs caused by adults (parents in this context), further implying that snarky comments are the general rule in the house.

now concretely: Your conclusion doesn't follow the evidence (non sequitur).

You made a generalization (inductive inference) based on a single datapoint (here's where my pointed faulty generalization or inductive fallacy are the come in) for the general problem. I suggest Popper if you want a deeper treatment of the problem of induction (The logic of scientific discovery is a good start).

Besides generalizing for free, you cooked up evidence that didn't exist - mainly that the child was imitating adults (again, non sequitur).

As a side note, I think it's in poor taste to make remarks about someone's children in what's a technical and informal context. That may have not been the intention but, it's what it looked like.

non sequitur, faulty generalization, inductive fallacy come to mind, but I think it's useful studying how to not be an walking fallacy, in general

If it took 3h for one of them, perhaps there was a time/compute budget cutoff along with a sorting based on some relevance.

Who's "we"?

Also clearly, what's the expectation that we hear that Kiva or Room to Read is baked by DRK? Have you heard of these? Which non profits have you heard of?

Consider this: "19% of all global Audacious Project awardees started out as DRK-funded entities and 10% of all Skoll Award for Social Innovation winners come from the DRK portfolio"

Does this help? Do you know who's Audacious or Skoll? And if, not perhaps can we reason when it's appropriate to challenge anything based on close to zero information about the subject?

fair enough

came here to say the same :) if nipples would be intuitive there wouldn't be an entire business of lactation consultants

How is this relevant?

thank you! that's nice looking! one thing from OP that's useful is the topic rather than the post. a mix between the two :)

I thought it's a collection of maps (what an atlas is). Instead it's a list, 9 items per page, 23 pages - it's an index. A map lets you see the full picture in a glance. It seems like a missed opportunity to actually make it an atlas.

one agent is a special kind of distributed system. It's a distributed system that is undistributed.

Two agents is a distributed system problem

Cocktails are margin error on drinking stats

I'm surprised the author is not panicking about the existence of customer support for decades.

This completely confused and misses the point of teleoperation vs following instructions/rules/protocols. Who set the GPS navigation destination?

Any sort of rule following is teleoperation by this definition then ⇒ the whole world is teleoperated.

Hospitals introduced intubation checklists to make sure protocols are followed and patients don't die. How about coding guidelines?

Indeed. I missed the top row. Thanks for pointing that.

> so this seems like missing the forest for the tree imo.

But is it? Again, regardless of the amount, what is the utility?

What's the end goal of academia (assuming broadly as research with humans) when the answers to the deepest questions become commodities at orders of magnitude higher speed and lower cost?

How are federal grants justified and, forgetting the current hierarchy, how is differentiation made? It's currently based on research output, once that becomes irrelevant what is it? We already have IMO, IOI as competitions and I assume just like Olympics this can be a thing, but it's very remote from research.

Take for example Rene Thom after Alexander Grothendieck overshadowed an entire field

> His technical superiority was crushing. His seminar attracted the whole of Parisian mathematics, whereas I had nothing new to offer. That made me leave the strictly mathematical world and tackle more general notions, like the theory of morphogenesis, a subject which interested me more and led me towards a very general form of 'philosophical' biology.

https://mathshistory.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Thom/

Now amplify this a few orders of magnitude.

While I understand and emphatically with Tao's concern I'm afraid it's missing the forest from the trees. Unless you can make a claim that AI will never be able to perform intellectually at the same level as any human at a much lower cost, there's an outstanding utility problem that remains unaddressed. Sure enough, the AI may not have taste or goals, or many human traits, but that's irrelevant to the much thornier (and much broader than mathematics or even academia) question related to who's getting paid how much and for what.

Yes. It conflates a bunch of things

> TL;DR I claim that modern science is synonymous with open source software

That's a strong statement that's not supported by the arguments and IMO misguided.

I don't have a problem with "open", but rather with "software".

Both science and software deal with models, however the focus is quite different. I suspect you conflate theory with models.

The goal of science is to produce and test theories — that's an inductive/abductive process. A model, regardless of whether it's reified into mathematical formulas or software, is a means of making a theory operational enough that its consequences can be derived and confronted with observations.

Software often starts downstream of this: it's a reification of theories, models, algorithms, or findings that are the result of research. Of course software can also be used as part of the research process itself. The distinction is roughly the familiar one between research and development.

Science is open, but science is not software and software definitely not science.

It’s research happening privately without publishing, usually going into products

There’s also the other side of the same coin where maintainers ignore your contributions. I’m happily forking things permanently and will likely rewrite them on cleaner foundations. I’ve never loved my tools more than I do now when I can get them coded at the same pace I think of them.

On the other hand, it’s been clear for a while that software as we knew will end up at a close to 0 marginal value.

Dimensions, and hence surfaces and volumes are part of our “tooling” used to understand the world (epistemic) rather than being intrinsic to nature. So the befuddling is related to our own interpretation.

note HEAVILY

> The students heavily utilized AI assistants, specifically Claude Opus 5 and GPT-5.6 Sol, for computational exploration, proof idea generation, and editing.

this is a bit like Enhanced Olympics(https://www.enhanced.com), except that you have someone else compete for you.

My issue is that it makes it hard to distinguish real insight/work etc. from effectively null one.

An old instance of the same issue was with what was called "script kiddie" back in the 90-00s

this may a good deeper read on the subject [Yoneda theory for double categories - R Paré - Theory and Applications of Categories, 2011 ](http://www.tac.mta.ca/tac/volumes/25/17/25-17.pdf)

This (by definition) the reality of every normalization/proxy layer, standard, etc. There’s always a cost for flexibility/freedom. What’s traded is when and by whom it’s paid.

Likely Palantir built it already

The name/logo sounds/looks a lot like Rancher (https://www.rancher.com) which is "herding" (docker) containers.

You’re not serious about it if you only have one box

I got the same feeling today