I am not surprised that this cage rattling of the academy landed on the front page of the NYT during this period of economic and political tumult. Mathematics can, and it should be an open question if it should, exist independently of provenance. I don't see mathematicians speaking with altitude about the economy of provenance; where AI may be dis-incentivizing mathematicians by eroding discovery claims; I see only entitled affront. But perhaps, if they are being honest, the glory of discovery is viewed as a critical motivator. If so, mathematics is thus imperiled by human vanity, not AI. The same logic applies to thinking and grappling with proofs -- it is a human choice to turn off your thinking. AI is attributed with false agency here.
I might have disagreed at one point. But then people on the left started spitting on my electric car. "Let's fight climate change by intimidating people who drive emission-free cars!" Progressives who use the word 'libtard' were suddenly born. Circular firing squads are not a sign of intelligence.
What is going to "suck" is when Anthropic blocks its models from honoring decompilation requests. You'll have to switch to OpenAI models :) And after that, another boost for Chinese open weights.
I think your metaphor is certainly possible. I feel it is much more like a "dragster for the mind" in my personal experience. In both cases you remain seated and your legs don't do much. But perhaps a wheelchair can get you more places...
I think that people who believe that AI will diminish human thinking might be more likely to have their thinking diminished. I don't discount that the effect discussed is possible, and probably likely for many; however, I strongly believe it is ultimately a choice. For me AI shifts what I give attention to, and increasingly I am thinking at higher levels of abstraction.
Or the booster, like me I guess, thought it might be a good idea after reading the suggestion, but was too lazy to follow through with the multitudes. Suffice to say, from my vantage, I see great benefits and enumeration is problematic as there are so many. There are certainly detriments and I think the skepticism is incredibly important, but I think there is a point where the critique can be self-fulfilling and suffocate AI from being as effective as it could be.
I find this perspective to be narrow and uncurious. AI is disrupting community -- it is not utterly dissolving it. I see no evidence of that. So many, including the OP, see AI as separator, an entombing force, somehow a black hole of intellect. In reality it is an evolution of the search engine which connects, navigates and further constructs digital civilization.
Nice device. Might be interesting if you thought outside the Jack. On MacOS there is BlackHole (open source) and Loopback (by one of my favorite companies, Rogue Amoeba). And creating a CoreAudio virtual audio driver on MacOS is easier than ever if you take a frontier LLM for a spin.
I don't trust modern fertilizers and pesticides blindly, but I have never successfully digested any inorganic food. The 'organic' label is an old idiocratic choice.
The videos don't display at all, though sound plays, on MacOS Safari. Mobile Safari does work. MacOS Chrome (where they actually tested I imagine) is fine too.
I should probably know more about Claude's TOS, but it is probably a mistake for these companies not to leverage the plausible deniability of their usage and turn it into a massive distillation resource for their own models.
I am fascinated by this clock. While synthesizers are themselves complex clocks that manifest in air -- I love them and I design them myself -- I find any music, even the enjoyable synth music chosen here, to dramatically distract from the clock. I want to hear the mundane sounds of your device, not some fantasy. A much better aesthetic would be to use ASMR techniques and amplify the sounds the clock actually makes. Let us celebrate your clock. We don't need to fantasize that it is something other than what it is.
The word 'graduation', regarding education, somehow lost its original meaning -- to measure peers against one another -- its sinister edge can be easily visualized by imagining a class of graduates stuffed into giant graduated cylinders clearly showing their achievements with etched gradations along their respective tubes. It is difficult for society to consider this process as the, or major contributor to the, problem of education rather than AI. I tend toward the belief that we place too much value upon these highly dubious and artificial systems of academic assessment; AI is providing a long overdue opportunity to evaluate the excesses and weaknesses of institutional education.
There is so much conjecture in this article -- take the difference between 'lisp formatting' and 'javascript formatting'. I use so-called 'javascript formatting' (a decided and embarrassing misnomer) routinely when I develop Clojure. This article exudes inexperience with Lisp.
OMG, the "improved" example is so cluttered and far far far less readable -- and even foreign -- to someone like me that has developed using lisp professionally for at least 10 years.
Please note the "we had to pick the best of multiple candidates". Easy to hire haskellteers, but Haskell shops are not many. You would probably find more Clojure roles, but they are in decline.
I have a Question about the matter of opinion reGarding the oddity of the letter 'W'. What Quickly and Gainfully comes to mind are other letters that combine curvature and rectilinear chanGe which seem to reflect oddity much more saliently than 'W'. Also 'W' arguably is a simple transposition of the letter 'M'. How was 'W' chosen in the face of the complexity and uniqueness it clearly lacks compared to other letters?
I found the statement "I found the resulting Zig code less readable than its Rust counterpart" absolutely hilarious, especially if you look at the code example comparison just above the statement.
You can defer review entirely to an LLM, only to human reviewers, or both. We are experimenting with both and have configured LLM skills for pull request reviews. On large projects we also configure LLMs to produce commit segregated diffs within a single pull request, to aid human review. This process is using the github pull request workflow that Zed is attempting to replace.
Tao's calls for respect for provenance in mathematics publication are laudable but most likely naive given the closed nature of frontier model training data curation. Anthropic and OpenAI may react with a symbolic and short-lived olive branch, yet provenance is a larger issue that has impacted other fields beyond mathematics. While traditional respect for lineage in mathematics is of value to the academy, industry and science at large will likely be much more Machiavellian about such concerns. Mike McCoy's recent article is also timely (https://mbmccoy.dev/posts/mathematical-conservatory/). The parallels to the music conservatory are quite telling -- academic music describes a musical culture in preservation that has completely lost touch with musical developments beyond the early 20th century. Mathematics may very well evolve separately and with very different values than the academy upholds. The crisis of music at the academy is a cultural disconnect and a serious loss of critical analysis and acknowledgement of widespread and dramatically evolving music practice; however, for mathematics, the impact would have much more severe ramifications for education and human development if the academy forces a schism with AI. As models improve they very well may be inventing mathematics -- science and engineering may grasp for them -- they'll exist with or without attribution. Would be a shame for the academy to land on the wrong side of history and refuse stewardship of upcoming AI-assisted mathematics, including provenance, because of this misalignment. If attribution is important, then the academy will set aside the institutional resources to do it. If you succeed at having model developers participate, I commend it. To let mathematics be born in isolated context windows and only serve narrow, localized engineering purpose without rightful addition to the canon, would be a tragic, yet preventable, loss.