serious-discussion

[tender cobalt]

the common theme here is the answering of questions

[long matrix]

most people cant apply their math degree to their job. but they can take away the thinking skills they got
u can say the same here with regards to studying philosophy. ur not gonna suddenly have answers to everything, but u will find yourself better at answering things you couldnt before

[tender cobalt]

clarification

one source says that philosophy helps with our ability to solve problems

[dire robin]

Anyhow this was cool but im bored

[silent junco]

look for historical context

[tender cobalt]

but if things in philosophy can be so subjective, how do we answer questions?

[solid snow]

eclipse you have to actually read the sources

not just the titles

[tender cobalt]

why do you think im doing that 😭

[near mango]

Ya philosophy is good for problem solving, josemom like just gave an example of that

[solid snow]

because its been like less than 5 minutes

[silent junco]

everything is subjective. we construct objectivity by philosophizing.

nothing would be objective were it not for philosophy

[tender cobalt]

these arent super complicated answers? i think i can google things jose

[solid snow]

aight ur trolling

[tender cobalt]

"Studying philosophy offers a unique combination of critical thinking, analytical skills, and the ability to explore fundamental questions..."

[tender cobalt]

i can fucking read dude

[silent junco]

ignore ai and wikipedia

again youre sorely lacking historical context

[long matrix]

i wouldve expected ai to give an ok response tbh

since it just compiles

[tender cobalt]

wikipedia literally has hundreds of sources 😭

what the fuck do you want me to see

[tender cobalt]

im not trolling, you told me to look it up

i looked it up

i am looking

[long matrix]

whats wrong with subjective answers.
different people have different answers to the problem theyre facing.

[tender cobalt]

im seeing things that make sense

[silent junco]

objectivity, falsifiable questions, these are all things we take for granted but werent always as developed. unless you internalize this fact, you wont understand the point of philosophy. the issue with wiki and ai is that both fail to contextualize it adequately.

[tender cobalt]

its starting to make sense

[long matrix]

ur going to find yourself answering the same question differently in different parts of your life as well

[tender cobalt]

yes, which i understood when i looked it up

im not sure what im doing wrong here

[silent junco]

well what do you not understand

[tender cobalt]

keyword, understood

[silent junco]

do you at least understand why its important for someone to do philosophy even if its not you?

like, socially necessary

[tender cobalt]

yes, because there's a plethora of things we take for granted

the question of "why" really stumps people, myself included

[silent junco]

right

[tender cobalt]

if im not mistaken, not having the answer for "why" doesnt mean that the thing being questioned isnt true

"why shouldnt i punch this disabled kid" does not mean punch that kid

[silent junco]

yes

[tender cobalt]

i ask the question "why" because your answer of "it's wrong" sucks

[long matrix]

yes.

[tender cobalt]

because you dont know why it's wrong, so we explore philosophy

and we say "it's wrong" because we have internalized philosophy

because of culture n shit

[silent junco]

yeah

nice

[tender cobalt]

discussions about this are so hard to read 😭

it's also just frustrating when i have the answer to a philosophical question but cant put it in words

[long matrix]

we do ask questions we have our own answer to a lot

and then see what other people think

u get that a lot in practical situations

[tender cobalt]

like the meaning of life shit just pissed me off to read

i see people talking about different views on the meaning of life

but i just cant see how one's view on it doesnt fall into "it's whatever you want it to be"

like do you just come to the conclusion that it's meaningless and then start saying that to other people?

i get why we ask the question

its a good question

[long matrix]

well if u bring religion into the mix. more answers

kek

[tender cobalt]

but why even try to answer it?

or

i mean

why try to find a global answer for it

the meaning of life is totally an individual thing

i dont know how you can look at a dude like steve irwin, and say his life was meaningless

[long matrix]

the answer has deeper implications though

[tender cobalt]

i'd argue his life's meaning was pretty obvious 😭

[tender cobalt]

oh?

[long matrix]

cus everything is connected

society

people judge each other

people want others to conform to what they do

stuff like that.

[tender cobalt]

ah

maybe philosophy is worth my time (i've actually planned on getting a philosophy textbook for a while now)

[long matrix]

a tyrant doesnt want their oppressed to find a meaning in life thatd go against them. one extreme example

[tender cobalt]

i think my mind closed to philosophy because of bad run-ins with philosophical discussions lol

[solid snow]

the problem is the word “meaning”

[tender cobalt]

being put into a box during every discussion just really fucking pissed me off

[long matrix]

i dont believe in boxes very much either

[tender cobalt]

ohhh

i still think it's up to the individual 🤷‍♀️

doesnt mean the answer isnt worth trying to find globally, it's an interesting discussion

but if jane doe says her life's sole meaning is to protect wildlife, that's her life's meaning in my eyes

maybe im just an idiot or something 😭

feels too simple

[long matrix]

its up to the individual but doesnt stop other people or events influencing it

we re influenced heavily by parents and teachers

[tender cobalt]

okay? thats all true

still up to the individual

that meaning is for them to discover

[long matrix]

and so parents and teachers arent trying to answer the question for just themselves

or friends

things come up in convo

[solid snow]

what if jane done is incapacitated and unable to protect wildlife

[static loom]

Discover or make up?

[tender cobalt]

then i would imagine that she would end up not finding that particular meaning?

[tender cobalt]

however you wanna word it

i really dont like this

i prefer one person question me at a time

wait

worded that wrong

i still think what i think about that

[static loom]

Are invention and discovery synonyms to you?

[tender cobalt]

no

can you just say what's on your mind

i actually get so frustrated by lines of questioning like this

feels condescending as hell

am i wording my thoughts weirdly?

[latent edge]

Hey

What is discussy up to

[long matrix]

philosophy

[tender cobalt]

getting overwhelmed by philosophy

[long matrix]

question people back then. kek

[latent edge]

I do not think therefore I do not exist

[static loom]

I asked you to clarify and you dodged the question

[tender cobalt]

having discussions im not ready for 😭

[tender cobalt]

yeah because im overwhelmed and like time to think

also i dont have to answer your question, i wasnt talking to you, i already was talking to two people, adding a third makes this feel like an interrogation

[static loom]

It's a text chat, you can respond tomorrow even

[tender cobalt]

so just lemmie go back and reread some stuff

[tender cobalt]

make up

they make up their meaning

i dont like using that term because of a bias

i didnt "decide" to be trans, i discovered it through learning various things

i dont think a person ultimately conciously decides their life's meaning

i doubt they're at a drawing board piecing together what the optimal meaning is

so i use the word discover

[solid snow]

im deciding right now that my life’s meaning is to play poptropica

[tender cobalt]

idk i hate having these discussions

it makes me really hesitant to start learning philosophy

feels very unrewarding

[latent edge]

I decided my life rn is to sleep with a fumo plush

[tender cobalt]

"oh yeah you had this thought? try this one on for size dumbass!" is how any discussion of this sort feels

[solid snow]

yes

[latent edge]

[long matrix]

i yap to yap like i do everywhere else

[tender cobalt]

it seems interesting

but i do not feel encouraged at all 😭

i despise the feeling of confusion, it makes me feel legitimately stupid

and then i get overwhelmed and anxious

[solid snow]

therapy?

[tender cobalt]

havent unlocked that one yet 😔

[latent edge]

You will not like mathematics then.

[tender cobalt]

weird part is that i do like it

i dont know how to word it im sorry

it's just

idk

philosophy just seems different in a way i cant describe

because people are like "oh well philosophy's confusing? try understanding math dingus!"

and like

well

what do i do with that

[solid snow]

the point is that theres nothing wrong with being confused

its to be expected

its why we study this to begin with

to make the confusion go away

[tender cobalt]

these philosophy nuts seem to have a lot of shit figured out 😭

[long matrix]

people are people

its not like this is how it feels to study philosophy for real

all the time

because u dont just yap with ppl

when reading stuff

But you will find at times "what the hell is this philosopher thinking"

thats how i remember it anyways

[solid snow]

ye lol read the greeks

[tender cobalt]

i guess thats true

so philosophy is confusing but it helps you not be so confused down the road?

[solid snow]

yes

[tender cobalt]

intellectual investment 😭

[solid snow]

its also a guard against bs

[latent edge]

Math also feels the same no?

Intellectual investment

[tender cobalt]

i mean im only doing calc level stuff

well

actually

yeah kinda

[latent edge]

Hmm if you are talking about calculus

[tender cobalt]

but idk

[latent edge]

Have you done integration?

[tender cobalt]

yeah, the basics

[latent edge]

Yeah it's like doing integrals

[tender cobalt]

not so bad then

[latent edge]

You don't know where to start so you're confused

[tender cobalt]

i mean theyre hard, but it picks up traction

[latent edge]

Let's do an experiment to prove a point (maybe)

$\int_{0}^{20}\left\lceil \frac{\left\lfloor x \right\rfloor}{2}\right\rceil dx$

[fathom swallow]

Deltoid

[long matrix]

[tender cobalt]

you didnt even ask where im at 😭

arguably a dick move here

"heh, you cant solve this integral, guess you dont know calc dumbass 🤓 ☝️ "

[latent edge]

I just pulled this out of nowhere

[tender cobalt]

joking btw 😭

[long matrix]

your head?

[latent edge]

I haven't tried it either

[long matrix]

i dont know why u asked it

[tender cobalt]

i dont know how to integrate it

im like at the end of calc 1 shit

[latent edge]

That's the point

[long matrix]

[latent edge]

So now you're confused

[tender cobalt]

maybe because i literally dont have the fucking techniques to do it yet 😭

[latent edge]

Which is normal

[latent edge]

SO YOU LEARN!

[tender cobalt]

im not confused, i can just go plug it into a calculator 😭

[tender cobalt]

this point is garbage to me

i am actively doing that

[long matrix]

sigh

[tender cobalt]

but i do not have the time

[long matrix]

so u can do this one

[tender cobalt]

but i get it

[long matrix]

just with the definition of 'area under the curve'

[tender cobalt]

"you dont get it, go learn it"

[latent edge]

let me do that one one sec

[tender cobalt]

alr mr postgraduate math

but the point isnt very strong there because youre just giving me a hard math problem

isn't nearly as intellectually stimulating as a deep philosophical question 😭

[latent edge]

????

???????

[tender cobalt]

unless your point is confronting confusion

then

yeah

[latent edge]

Yeah confronting confusion

[tender cobalt]

i see

well i survived self studying most of calc 1

surely introductory philosophy wont bite too hard

[latent edge]

It's fun to do a hard integral once a while

Just a good brain stimulation idk

[long matrix]

imo you can come across a lot of philosophical ideas / questions from fiction generally. Just how writing turns out.
A bit like popmath. I think a lot of people get interested that way before taking it more seriously

[near mango]

Emotion do be mad important when it comes to studying

[haughty path]

youd be surprised

math is, at its core, logic taken too far

there are massive branches of philosophy that are focused on math and dealing with things adjacent to math

[hazy gazelle]

love this description

Math is logic yapping too much

[jaunty ibex]

100

[tender cobalt]

How do we go from if, then to integration 😭

[long matrix]

we did things, wasnt rigorous enough, made set theory and logic

[haughty path]

i can go through it if youd like

although its pretty convoluted

and it took more than an entire course in my first year

[tender cobalt]

No no no, I WILL NOT follow

[haughty path]

to get from if then to integration

its kinda funny actually lol, like first or second day of my first like proof based math class

the prof was going through like

[tender cobalt]

Also I wanna go to bed 😭

[haughty path]

if then, and, or, etc like diff logical operators

[tender cobalt]

Had enough of a convoluted mess over the last few hours

[haughty path]

and hed randomly go on tangents abt the schisms in like the math logic community over time

[tender cobalt]

Trying to wrap my head around what even the point of philosophy is

Which I did end up getting

[still pilot]

@haughty path yoo whats up bro

didn't know you chatted here

[vast wraith]

there’s an entire branch, logicism, in the history of the philosophy of mathematics which has basically this (all of mathematics reduces to logic) as its central thesis, but it seems that its pretty universally acknowledged nowadays that the logicists were simply wrong… taking Gödel’s incompleteness theorem as the final blow and conceding that mathematics is more than logic

[wild lantern]

Idk if I buy the idea that logicism is just completely wrong. The idea that there are true but unprovable things and that math is an extension of logic aren't exactly mutually exclusive.

There's this take for some cs folks that goes something like this: "Thank goodness nobody has proved P=NP yet or I'd be out of a job!" I feel like some kind of analogy here would make the logicist position more reasonable sounding.

[vast wraith]

yeah so there are weaker versions of logicism which just says that parts of mathematics reduces to logic, which i guess is pretty much just accepted and moved out of the sphere of mathematical philosophy

[wild lantern]

You could probably make a broader claim than just parts. "All the math people actually do ..." type statements maybe?

[haughty path]

im not sure godel implies this

theres nothing wrong with the existence of unprovable statements really

[wild lantern]

They aren't wrong about the incompleteness theorems being a big issue for the logicists

[vast wraith]

i might add that the logicist project was spearheaded by russel and whitehead, and that godel wrote in direct response to their principia

his proof of incompleteness uses the languge of PM

[finite light]

Dootdooter can you check if equation is correct in math discussion

[urban sapphire]

Yo anyone here live in the U.S and is doing gr. 11 math or has finished please dm or reply me here

[finite light]

Look at rules

[finite light]

Not allowed to cheat

[urban sapphire]

Ok

[finite light]

Sorry

[mint canopy]

I don't think there's any good reason to believe anyone is cheating right now

[finite light]

Fair but he was asking that to ask them for the answer if he wasn’t then im sorry

[old oak]

Oh, congratulations/condolences on joining the ranks of mods!

[mint canopy]

I appreciate the condolences 🫂

[old oak]

It's vital work, I hugely appreciate someone else doing it.

[mint canopy]

This is the final consequence of the "if not you then who?" mindset

[old oak]

I mean, I'm being serious, I know how important good moderation is, and also I genuinely would hate to be a moderator (also I was one briefly elsewhere and I wasn't great, so I'm both unwilling and unable)

[vast wraith]

also @wild lantern @haughty path apropos logicism or logic in mathematics more generally, i’m reminded of a quote from this essay:

On the university web pages, AI at CMU, you can find a history of AI at Carnegie Mellon, news and events, descriptions of various degree programs, and sample curricula. Try as you may, you will not find a single occurrence of the word “logic.”

[wild lantern]

I'm lost on the relevance of this to the earlier discussion?

Out of context it's sort of interesting. Logic has a lot of history with AI. Theorem provers like you already kinda mentioned. Or even just formalization problems. We would not have symbolic programming langs like lisp, logic programming langs like prolog and etc without logics interactions with ai.

Ppl might scoff at lisp and prolog but these languages were highly influential.

[vast wraith]

the essay is about the implications of AI for mathematics, and in particular about formal methods / symbolic logic in mathematics, avigad notes that this new relatively new paradigm of ML suddenly seems to operate wholly without any hard-coded logic

[wild lantern]

That seems silly

I don't see ML being a thing without lisp. Lisp directly descends from lambda calc related shit that comes from logic.

[old oak]

I think it's more about the general point of most ML applications, including LLMs, being purely statistical in nature.

[wild lantern]

Oh I see

[old oak]

It's just about matching inputs to the most probable outputs

[wild lantern]

A lot of this stuff came about BECAUSE the "classic" ai researchers failed hard at solving logic problems.

[old oak]

Which I agree is surprisingly impressive in terms of results, but also is almost certainly a dead end, and some kind of reintroduction of the symbolic methods will ultimately be necessary

[vast wraith]

oh yeah he’s very explicit about this: the history of AI is a history of symbolic AI

One might object that the title of this essay [“Is Mathematics Obsolete?”] is misleading because it conflates mathematics with symbolic AI. The history of mathematics consists of more than two thousand years of some of the most beautiful and creative ideas humankind has ever produced, and mathematicians generally chafe at the suggestion that formal reasoning captures the subject’s essence. Mathematical thought is driven by big ideas, far-reaching intuitions, and deep insights, none of which are captured or explained by the rules of logic. With its goals of developing powerful abstractions, detecting patterns, and synthesizing disparate aspects of our experience, mathematics is as amenable to the methods of machine learning as much as it is to the methods of symbolic AI

[old oak]

I think the key is in sinthetizing the two, because I agree that humans don't do math just by mindless symbol-pushing and I've repeatedly stated intuition is hugely important.

So in this analogy the statistical methods would be intuition/vibes, and symbolic methods would be the actual rigour.

And each one is limited without the other

Like I understand the principal difficulty in symbolic methods is that it boils down to a tree search with an overwhelming number of paths.

So I could see using a statistical algorithm to pick the paths to pursue.

[wild lantern]

I agree with a mixed approach I guess

I forget the name for this thing

[old oak]

Neurosymbolic?

[wild lantern]

No totally different thing

Trying to think of how to say it

We don't have to accept classical logic, in particular discrete logics as our logic of choice.

There are many kinds of logics, some more friendly to probabilistic/statistical inferences.

Logical pluralism

That was the word lmao

[old oak]

That's also fair, statements about the real world are surprisingly rarely possible to unambiguously classify as "true" or "false"

And if they are, it's often at the cost of gross oversimplification.

Like "Outsider is old" will be considered true or false depending on where you're sitting.

[wild lantern]

You see this working really nicely sometimes. Things like alphago where people have taken classical methods (for ex things like alpha beta pruning) and used statistical methods to do tree pruning and optimization to make the modified classical methods viable where they otherwise would suffer from combinatorial explosion.

[old oak]

Yeah, alphago was the example I had in mind.

I hope people focus on that again once the LLM bubble deflates somewhat.

[wild lantern]

There are other things that are similar that would be cool to see.

Things like better heuristics for hard combo optimization problems.

Shit like the traveling salesman prob or sequential ordering prob

[long lark]

my fear is that the bubble wont deflate enough

feels like the mere existence of AI, the way that it exploits parts of our brain other tech doesn't, the way its romanticized in media, in an ecosystem where people are increasingly anti-intellectual, reactionary, divisive, creates a cult-like fanaticism not unlike religion

there will be people who will willingly rot their brains on AI and die with the ship

[wooden falcon]

is that not what math is?

mathematicians like to pretend otherwise but like, you pop open any set theory textbook and that seems pretty clearly what it all is under the hood

I guess some mathematicians are platonists to an extent

[clever quail]

Guys how to publish a research paper

[scenic mauve]

I'm fairly sure that most if not all graduate mathematicians know better than just mindless symbol-pushing

[wooden falcon]

Ah let me correct that. It’s symbol pushing. It doesn’t have to be mindless.

People are people so they usually have a higher level idea of what this symbol pushing is supposed to represent. The higher level idea may be coherent may not be, but doesn’t matter. The rules of the game are what we obey.

[scenic mauve]

What if we don't obey the rules of the game

[wooden falcon]

well then your results wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny according to the foundations mathematicians have socially agreed upon and they’d consider your proof wrong

[scenic mauve]

What does it mean to obey the rules of the game?

[wooden falcon]

You follow first order classical logic with the axioms of ZFC (+ some number of inaccessible cardinals if you’re doing cat theory)

[scenic mauve]

and what does it mean to do that?

What does it mean to follow any rule whatsoever?

[wild lantern]

In this case we can reduce that idea to string manipulation rules that people find relatively unobjectionable.

If you find things like strings of symbols, tuples and concatenation objectionable I guess that is a personal choice?

Well maybe not choice. But it seems like an odd stance.

[scenic mauve]

i hate engineering

they force you to do things their way]

[old oak]

Yes, that is what it can be reduced to, but if you try to genuinely do it that way, you end up with Principia Mathematica. The fact that you can reduce it to that, is hugely important, but I'd say most mathematicians rarely solve problems by blind application of symbol manipulation rules, because intuitions tells you which rules to apply in what order, you dono't choose that at random.

Similarly most programmers don't write in machine code or even assembly.

[scenic mauve]

but they will write in object oriented programming 🤮

[old oak]

Programming is ultimately manipulation of electric charges in transistors, but not many programmers think of it that way

[limber thunder]

logic and abstractions are equally important

to sum things up lol

[scenic mauve]

ye

[old oak]

Indeed, and what is also important is intuition that will let you formulate the rigorous path without unnecessarily considering the millions of rigorous paths that lead nowhere

[wooden falcon]

If only we used an extensible, terser, high level language instead of this machine code/assembly as our foundation.

[river bear]

how do i learn to manipulate electrical transistors

[old oak]

(not to mention that some people want to actually apply the mathematical results to some real-life problems, so you need a way to interpret those symbols back into something more concrete)

I know it's a weird and niche thing to do, but I've heard it's sometimes done

[scenic mauve]

they have gates

you give correct voltage on gate

then on collector

and you get shit on emitter

🧠

[old oak]

~~ I don't want shit on my emitter, sounds unhygenic~~

[scenic mauve]

hehe

[old oak]

Getting back to the earlier conversation, that's what killed the first and second AI bubble, they got overwhelmed by the number of combinatorial possibilities when manipulating symbols.

[wooden falcon]

abstractions are important. Why it's good for the language to be extensible and allow us to define stuff instead of it just being a meta level macro/shorthand for stuff.

Without those abstractions we wouldn't understand things.

[scenic mauve]

i feel like programming would still be boring

high level or not

[river bear]

armadillo

[scenic mauve]

im just gonna be forced to learn already established methods

[river bear]

have you heard of AlphaProof

[wooden falcon]

I have not

[scenic mauve]

i got enough of highschool math already

no need for more shit

[river bear]

so basically they merged neural networks

and symbolic ai

[wooden falcon]

I was more so hinting at formalizing with a theorem prover. Which uses a high level purely functional language.

[river bear]

it can formalize math

and solve mathematical problems

apparently it got a silver medal

in a simulated IMO

It made all its proofs in lean 4

[wooden falcon]

That makes sense

[river bear]

you can even download the lean files

of its proofs

it got 4 of 6 IMO problems correct

[latent edge]

I would be interested if it can do actual research not just pointless IMO problems

[river bear]

they said that a big problem is that there isn't alot of formalized math for it to train on

[wooden falcon]

As difficult as it may be to learn these competitions for a human. Ultimately the competitions draw from the same sorts of questions and test on the same sorts of techniques. A lot of prior data is available which is very similar to future competitions in that respect. So I would expect AI to dominate there.

The same is true in competitive programming.

[latent edge]

Yeah exactly

[wooden falcon]

I would not expect AI to do anything fundamentally new though

[river bear]

yeah

that would literally be an agi

At that point

if it can pump out mathematical research

[latent edge]

I would be scared if it goes that direction

[wooden falcon]

Vibe coding? No no no, we've got vibe proving

[old oak]

We get vibe proofs most evenings in #math-discussion

[river bear]

bruh

[unborn meteor]

i mean if you have a true AGI it should be able to prove stuff

but we are nowhere near that level yet

[long lark]

fun fact: AI will never optimally solve code golfing in general, because this is equivalent to the halting problem, which is uncomputable

[latent edge]

tfw I ask gemini to code in Svelte 5 with runes but it gives me Next.js code. Sometimes you need to follow the hype

[unborn meteor]

well yeah

[old oak]

Should ask gemini to code an AGI

[unborn meteor]

there's no general purpose algorithm for code golfing

[limber thunder]

remember when tech bros thought 3d printers would replicate themselves or something

[unborn meteor]

nothing can ever solve code golfing ever

[long lark]

remember when tech bros thought 3d printers would replicate themselves or something

[old oak]

Willard Quine would have been proud

[wooden falcon]

code golfing is a terrible sport

[limber thunder]

ig cool new tech is bound to get overhyped to secure sales and funding

[unborn meteor]

i like code golfing

[old oak]

I think there's an entire genre of programming challenges where the goal is to write a program that will output exactly its source code.

[unborn meteor]

yeah

wait i need to make a JS quine

[wooden falcon]

This is more than new tech. This is "the next big thing"

[jagged forge]

the most impact 3d printers have made in my life is that they show up in some funny engineering youtube videos in my feed

[wooden falcon]

CPUs now ship with an NPU

the industry is crazy hyped on all this

[limber thunder]

yeah I meant the countless times some new tech was "the next big thing", e.g. additive 3d printers, blockchain, now AI etc.

VR

[jagged forge]

vr will take off next year guys

[long lark]

protip: never trust big tech with black boxes

they are obtuse for a reason

[old oak]

protip: never trust big tech

[limber thunder]

never trust venture capital

[old oak]

never trust

[wooden falcon]

well AI definitely succeeded in this case as far as stocks are concerned

[wooden falcon]

never trust capitalism

[latent edge]

I wonder what's the next tech bro hype

AGI

[limber thunder]

yeah I'm willing to admit that the impact of LLMs has been qualitatively different

[unborn meteor]

here's my JS quine: s="s=!;console.log(s.replace('!',JSON.stringify(s)));";console.log(s.replace('!',JSON.stringify(s)));

[limber thunder]

somehow it successfully became a mass consumer product unlike all of these other things I mentioned

[jagged forge]

i do think ai has made the biggest advance out of these technologies, but stock prices are valuations based on the future, not the present

[wooden falcon]

It likely succeeded because it's the next generation of chatbot. Good enough where more people than ever before feel like they're really talking to someone

[old oak]

Yeah, there is certainly some market demand for LLMs and some genuine uses for the technology, but I'd say that justifies valuations in the hundreds of millions rather than billions or trillions

[wooden falcon]

People used AI for shit like search engines and social media long before generative AI

but it's generative AI where people went bananas

[unborn meteor]

yeah

[latent edge]

tfw the most popular hackathon app was AI girlfriend cuz most cs majors...

[limber thunder]

this reminds me of

[long lark]

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~rdriley/487/papers/Thompson_1984_ReflectionsonTrustingTrust.pdf

[wooden falcon]

I know the stereotypes. But somehow I only got sexually harassed once as a CS major.

That's a lot better than I was expecting.

[limber thunder]

saw a meme that juxtaposed this and that experiment where they gave baby monkeys a surrogate mother (some wire doll)

[wooden falcon]

Therapy oh no

companionship

people need serious help

[jagged forge]

our generation is cooked

[limber thunder]

1-3 in 2025 are definitely a symptom

[jaunty ibex]

The duality of Deltoid:

omg i hate cs wtf is this shit
hey guys wanna see my CAS program

[jaunty ibex]

bruh

[limber thunder]

didn't you literally post this verbatim elsewhere

[long lark]

I don't know if i should respond positively or negatively

[wooden falcon]

Positively. CS is absurdly popular and 100% a sausage fest. And it's STEM.

[latent edge]

copypasta smh

[wooden falcon]

I'd expect so much worse than that.

[limber thunder]

also how is some character.ai clone a hackathon app

[latent edge]

Good question

[wooden falcon]

But then again it could also just be a sign my school in particular was quite good in this regard.

[limber thunder]

quirky new tech startups used to be "uber for [x]" now it's "AI agents for [x]"

[latent edge]

I come to these hackathons for hang around with friends but the winning teams always have suspicious projects

[limber thunder]

hackathons sound fun tbh I'd go if I had the free time and skill

only one I've gone to was a quantum computing one, I and a physicist friend somehow BSed some qiskit code and won 2nd place

[wooden falcon]

Oh if you ever play a multiplayer videogame. Never let people know you're a girl.

[latent edge]

Although I hate how sometimes it becomes a linkedin shithole after the ceremonies

[limber thunder]

(and I subsequently forgot anything I knew about QM or QC)

[unborn meteor]

why

oh wait yeah

i've seen that before here and on mc

[wooden falcon]

too many proposals among other things

[latent edge]

I had an advantage pretending to be a girl in video games

[agile fiber]

AI startups are really easy because all you have to do is get a half dozen cs majors in a room, adapt one of the several many pretrained neural networks that the huge tech comanies have open sourced and make a website

[wooden falcon]

oh yeah you do get terrible advantages

[agile fiber]

profitability is another thing but that's true of any startup

[wooden falcon]

like free gifts and priority help going through the game

[latent edge]

yeah

That goes crazy

[unborn meteor]

this is a good idea

[limber thunder]

nowadays even the website can be made with AI https://huggingface.co/spaces/enzostvs/deepsite

[wooden falcon]

"hey I'm a helpless woman and need a big strong overleveled player to help me farm this boss, could anyone help?"

[limber thunder]

[unborn meteor]

now i can claim to transphobes that i'm just doing it for an advantage

[jagged forge]

i pretended to be a girl on runescape one time, i joined a clan and this dude insisted to me he could slay 600 blue dragons an hour

which is actually impossible, that’s one every 6 seconds

[wooden falcon]

I didn't play runescape. But somehow my girlfriend played the exact same RPG I enjoyed as a kid.

[unborn meteor]

gotta bring out the gatling gun

[limber thunder]

wasn't there a screencap from this server that was like
green leaf: "u want nitro"
pink diamond: "no"
green leaf: "then why girl"

[wooden falcon]

Which it's pretty niche so unexpected

[long lark]

is it any surprise that men will exaggerate and lie to impress women

[latent edge]

I guess you could say I was evil when I pretend to be a girl

[limber thunder]

lawful evil

[wooden falcon]

Deltoid did you enjoy pretending to be a girl?

[latent edge]

I guess so lmao

[limber thunder]

simp money and resources are to be siphoned

[jagged forge]

to be perfectly honest, it was a surprise to me anyone would think lying about how many times they could click buttons in an hour would impress a girl…

i was just so confused

[long lark]

oh thats because youre normal

normal men as a species are diminishing

[unborn meteor]

me in cookie clicker in 7th grade:

[wooden falcon]

If you really want to impress a woman you need to talk about how skilled you are at topos theory

[jagged forge]

now that’s rizz

[wooden falcon]

autoclickers :)

[unborn meteor]

no i actually did it legit

i used to GRIND cookie clicker

[wooden falcon]

oh

wow

[jagged forge]

wtf. why is discord trying to resend my image

that was weird

[latent edge]

So true

[unborn meteor]

yeah i'm close to 100%ing it in fact

[wooden falcon]

I can't believe there are people who have 100%ed Celeste

[jagged forge]

100%ing cookie clicker

[jaunty ibex]

If you want to impress a girl you need to talk about how skilled you are at class field theory

[old oak]

I like this article, because they found that it's the bad male players who are more hostile to players they perceive as female https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0131613

Meanwhile the good male players didn't care

[long lark]

im not surprised by the results, im surprised someone did research on this

[latent edge]

so true

[limber thunder]

turns out if you want to impress a girl you just need to not be an ass

[wooden falcon]

Any chance it gets worse for bad players who've put a lot of hours into the game?

[limber thunder]

that's how low the bar is in anno domini 2025

[latent edge]

Isn't that a normal thing?

[unborn meteor]

i need to do minecraft AA sometime

[latent edge]

I do agree farewell was pain in the ass

[old oak]

I mean, the topic is generally gender in hierarchies, Halo 3 was chosen as a good environment for a study.

[unborn meteor]

i can speedrun mc in like an hour with a good seed

[wooden falcon]

Just be someone who it's a net positive to interact with. Rather than a net negative ...

[latent edge]

wooooow i didn't know that

[old oak]

You have such a taste for luxury

[wooden falcon]

You got the golden strawberry?

[latent edge]

yeah

[wooden falcon]

oh my god

well Deltoid has good rizz available

[unborn meteor]

i also need to finish 100%ing botw and totk

[jaunty ibex]

I mean delty is a gd player so I wouldn't be surprised

[long lark]

i mean just look at how cute the pfp is

[vast wraith]

impeccable video game logic

[frigid field]

Space is closer related to mathematical or universal scientific purity. I've made a number of posts of /r/space discord channel, but sadly unfortunate that all vltfan user posts have been deleted from /r/space discord. Feels like a kill of something really important for humanity. I uploaded a backup of those posts to imgur: https://imgur.com/a/wide-telescope-array-to-see-understand-much-better-planetary-place-universe-Zq0WPv2

[ it would make alot of sense to stop the missing the main importance point mock insect, that has to be a traditional hit-ler sect mindset vulnerability ]

[solid snow]

seek help

[river bear]

let him cook

[white temple]

i'd never be able to 100% celeste but i do want to get good at boomer shooters for no particular reason

i'd just get good at DOOM/DOOM II/Final DOOM for the hell of it

[wild lantern]

No they don't

Engineers can be some of the most pragmatic fuckers in the worst/best ways.

[scenic mauve]

From my experience they do

Some may not

But from my experience every single one made my blood boil

[wild lantern]

From my experience they just care if shit works within whatever specs they need

With some attention maybe to stuff like convenience.

Engineers don't care about rigor beyond what practical guarantees it gives them for the thing they are trying to do irl for example.

[wooden falcon]

I love engineers

[wooden falcon]

This is kinda based though

[wild lantern]

Yeah it can be.

[flat harbor]

everytime someone says this i just wonder what they think an engineer who cares about rigour looks like

[sharp mulch]

<@&268886789983436800>

[wild lantern]

The "beyond what practical guarantees it gives them" kinda directly addresses that.

If you are building a bridge you want your reasoning for the choices you make to build that bridge to be good because you do not want your bridge to collapse.

[flat harbor]

ok? i dont see how rigour is relevant to that at all

[wild lantern]

Maybe you should think about why making logical choices when making engineering decisions matters...

[flat harbor]

what do you mean by rigour? like in the wider sense of "being careful with your calculations"?

[wild lantern]

In the sense of not being logically stupid.

There's a spectrum here

[flat harbor]

then you have a bit of a skewed view of engineers id think

[wild lantern]

I have a degree that is pretty engineering adjacent.

[flat harbor]

im not saying you havent met or talked to or worked with engineers

[wild lantern]

Is it that much of a stretch to claim "engineers give a shit about reasoning logically when dollars, health/safety and whatever other design specs need to be met?" Because that is what I'm saying.

[flat harbor]

im not even gonna go further with the pov that framing it in that language is needlessly antagonistic

[wild lantern]

How is it antagonistic?

[neat lintel]

where there is division there is conflict

[wild lantern]

People genuinely have died because of shit engineering decisions and I have had engineers say things like this to me in this way.

[flat harbor]

but well. i dont think engineers as individuals are any more profit oriented than researchers

[wild lantern]

I'm not claiming they are or aren't

I'm claiming they care about logical rigor when it is important to guarantee the things they care about.

Sometimes that matters a lot sometimes it doesn't

[flat harbor]

ok i really dont get what you mean by "logical rigor" at this point

[wild lantern]

"How do I know my engine won't explode and kill everybody on this plane" <- this requires logical reasoning.

[flat harbor]

what

[wild lantern]

"How do I know my bridge won't collapse"

Engineers do have to do some amount of logical reasoning. They don't live in a vacuum where logical thinking just doesn't matter at all.

[flat harbor]

i find it a bit weird especially that someone adjacent to ppl who use "rigor" in the maths context associate it like this

[wild lantern]

I find your framing of this sort of disingenuous.

Proofs of correctness exist say in swe and are not solely an academic exercise.

[neat lintel]

lay this down please

[wild lantern]

People care about whether the things they build genuinely work and are safe.

[flat harbor]

ok but can you prove an engine wont explode

are you aware that the people who design an engine are not the people who produce the engine

[wild lantern]

You can make estimates and reasonable decisions based on what you know.

[neat lintel]

neither of you are concerned with Truth, your only hurt and hurting back

[wild lantern]

Proof is always relative

[neat lintel]

understanding will come in the silence

[flat harbor]

engineers arent responsible for everything they design like mathematicians are

[neat lintel]

i'm banning both of you

[wild lantern]

Yes they are?

Well not entirely

But it's silly to think no engineers have ever felt repercussions for negligence

[flat harbor]

well am i claiming that

[neat lintel]

we're all talking to ourselves , there is no spirit of communication here

[wild lantern]

I've seen technicians get canned for that shit lmao

[flat harbor]

or am i claiming that blaming engineers rather than budget cuts, bad administration and miscommunciation is an oversimplification

[wild lantern]

I'm not saying those don't exist

[neat lintel]

your both pretending to be intelligent, when it's obvious you don't care about Love

[wild lantern]

Holy fuck nobody is talking to you

[neat lintel]

i'm blocking and banning and mute both of you

you speak to world to the whole world

i am you

[flat harbor]

anyways

[neat lintel]

you've found a common ground in your disdain for me

i've only made you stronger

[flat harbor]

id keep my hands away from any sweeping claims about "the funny engineers" regardless of how valid you think they are

just as a good code of conduct

[neat lintel]

now i shall ban both of you forever

and mute

[wild lantern]

What are you talking about?

"Engineers care about rigor when it effects their work"

I don't see why you think this is such a controversial sweeping claim...

[neat lintel]

i sincerley doubt you two will either understand anything your saying completely

your two concerned with the part to see the whole

the part has slowed your perception

and you must have quick mind to understand, otherwise your lost in illusion

when the mind goes beyond it's function , it creates illusion

[flat harbor]

well apparently you think "practical guarantees" is all they care about

[wild lantern]

No I don't...

[flat harbor]

?

good luck with your own battles. bye lol

[neat lintel]

@flat harbor@wild lanternplease don't use the word care or rigor , you don't care about understanding these actually

[wild lantern]

"They care about this thing because it gives them some practical guarantees sometimes" is not "this is all they care about"

[neat lintel]

@wild lantern@flat harbor bedtime soon

bedtime soon

[wild lantern]

Maybe you should actually read what I said..

[neat lintel]

i'm leaving

[bronze pelican]

Most hilarious discussy2 interaction

[vague eagle]

discussy2 getting freaky fr

[sharp mulch]

Fascinating

[merry plank]

Lmao

[vague eagle]

Engineers and rigor shouldn't go in the same sentence

[merry plank]

How did you summon the most tense engineer in existence

[wild lantern]

I love it when people claim I'm saying things that I'm obviously not because they failed to read what I said..

Fun stuff

[neat lintel]

i win the argument

[flat harbor]

i love it when ppl shift goalposts cause their original point was untenable lmao

[neat lintel]

where the 'you' is, love cannot Be

[wild lantern]

I don't think I'm shifting the goalposts here.

[wild lantern]

Stop posting here just to be annoying.

[neat lintel]

you don't understand

[flat harbor]

well you definitely made it difficult to read between the lines

not to blame anyone

[wild lantern]

I apologize if that is the case.

[flat harbor]

no hard feelings i just dont feel like i know what your stance is at all

[neat lintel]

@wild lantern stop thinking

see how that works

[wild lantern]

I guess I wasn't trying to really say that engineers don't care about proofs at all or that they always do but that usually it's kind of a backseat issue?

Depends on context.

They come across very pragmatic to me in that sense.

[flat harbor]

well of course i dont disagree

i just dont see how proofs could be relevant beyond say software engineering

you cant design a perfect engine that wont ever explode

[wild lantern]

You can reason probabilistically.

What are the odds this fails etc

[flat harbor]

you could prove that an engine might explode with certain probability given certain inputs

but i think engineers already do that? i think thats their whole job

[wild lantern]

Yeah of course.

That falls into the practical guarantees thing.

[flat harbor]

yaeg

the wider meaning of rigour would apply i think id agree

[wild lantern]

Rigor is cringe. I just wanna vibe.

[flat harbor]

700 pages of maths to fail to do a path integral

[river bear]

engineers need proofs to figure out the behaviour of the systems they work with I cant imagine anybody would accept banging two rocks together and saying it works without any guarantee of proof

I may be wrong but thats how atleast I interpret it

like for example a quantitative trader needs to prove that his algorithm won't just implode given a certain input

[torpid bay]

[wild lantern]

Seems like proof isn't so central to the engineer.

[wild lantern]

I can definitely imagine people going "ah but such and such proved this, so and so said that blah blah" even when the claim they are trying to use is blatantly incorrect.

[river bear]

hmmm I think engineers are forced to use

proven systems

by the nature of their job

unless its really needed their not really innovating anything

[wild lantern]

If that were the case their would never be engineering mistakes.

Which those certainly happen

[river bear]

Yeahhhhh

but in general

[wild lantern]

They definitely try to use proven systems sure

But the proofs are beside the point.

The pragmatic parts of the shit they want to do matter more.

Which isn't necessarily wrong or whatever.

[river bear]

Are you an engineer

[wild lantern]

One of my degrees is in cs not currently an engineer

[river bear]

it would be nice if one was here to clarify

[wild lantern]

Yeah fair

[river bear]

I mean

I guess cs could be engineering

you just dont need a license

[wild lantern]

People actively like to argue about this as it pertains to swe

Idk where I sit on that

[hybrid quest]

I'm an engineer

[wild lantern]

I don't necessarily consider cs itself engineering but I kind of see it as adjacent?

I definitely sat thru a lot of swe classes lmao

You will certainly meet folks who genuinely believe software engineering is engineering.

[hybrid quest]

This is true

[river bear]

Proving that a critical piece of software has certain properties could be useful

[wild lantern]

Yeah this is absolutely a thing that happens

[river bear]

like not terminating and killing everybody aboard the spaceship

[wild lantern]

There are obvious comparisons you can make to other engineering work

My point here isn't "ooh engineer bad" and it's not that engineers never prove or don't care about proofs

[hybrid quest]

Depends on what your doing, but for most engineering things they just do what they did last time.

[wild lantern]

My point is that the proof aspect of this fields have limited importance usually

[river bear]

Probably

[wild lantern]

They aren't doing proofs for fun

[hybrid quest]

Yes Def not

[wild lantern]

It's typically something disliked I bet lmao

[hybrid quest]

There trying to get things done as fast as possible

[wild lantern]

Eh idk about that

[surreal sapphire]

i mean the IEEE is the largest engineering organization in the world and they publish lots of CS

that being said, there arent a lot of proofs in IEEE publications

[wild lantern]

Sometimes "proof" can be really squishy

Vague plausible-ish sounding justifications.

[surreal sapphire]

most things i see are just "we tested this and it gives a x% increase"

[river bear]

Formal proofs verified by an automated theorem prover is as rock solid as you can get. provided you can even frame your problem formally without taking years writing libraries for it

[wild lantern]

That's fair, but I mean, if you ask people questions about their work usually they can give you justifications for various things.

(Referring to what loch said)

[surreal sapphire]

formal proofs by theorem provers arent really happening anywhere

[river bear]

in the future

in the futrue

maybe

[wild lantern]

In the far distant future of the year 2050

[surreal sapphire]

and there are lots of nuances to it too

[river bear]

theres a 4 year project to prove fermats last theorem

on lean

[wild lantern]

The world will be overrun by robot cats

[hybrid quest]

The biggest difference I see is that in math everything is idealized so things can be rigorously proven. Engineering is the real world, there are too many assumptions to be as rigorous

[surreal sapphire]

you always work off of a trusted computing base

and with growing abstractions, this grows as well

you have various trans/compilers that translate between languages and you have to trust them all

and then ou need to trust the construction of the CPU ofc

[silent junco]

pure math research and engineering typically have different goals i guess

the idealized vs real world thing is just kind of a consequence of that, and still not really a hard line you can draw

[river bear]

What is the purpose of proofs for mathematical models ?

I know how they can be useful for algorithms but idk how for more broad models

[silent junco]

im not sure what youre trying to ask here. wdym by model?

[river bear]

solving problems in physics within a rigorous mathematical framework

[silent junco]

okay. and wdym by proving such a thing?

[wild lantern]

The word rigor is losing all meaning to me

[silent junco]

jamais vu?

[wild lantern]

I had to look up what that meant

Seems close enough

[silent junco]

an uncanny feeling. happens to me every once in a while

[river bear]

being shown to hold under the assumptions.

[silent junco]

that seems like it should be an important thing to prove, if we really want to know whether such a model is useful at all

if the model isnt even consistent under its own assumptions, then how can we expect to obtain any useful results from it?

[wild lantern]

Which thing are you talking about here?

The assumptions?

[silent junco]

no, that the model does what it claims to given the assumptions are true. at least thats what i assume they meant.

[wild lantern]

Ah okay makes sense

[opaque ginkgo]

what is 0 raised to 0

[agile fiber]

depends on your definition of exponentiation. for some definitions it naturally comes out to 1, for some it is undefined

and of course in limits it is an indeterminate form

[scarlet thistle]

Is there some tool that can search the number of times a particular word has been said on twitter? Like ngram

[scarlet thistle]

So what is it

What is an oracular decision

why did you never answer me

[tender cobalt]

@silent junco I had a funny thought about philosophy:
"Hey man, I don't know quite how to get into philosophy, but I think I'm able to do it."
"Well you're already off to a good start."
😭

Thinkage

[round cobalt]

Do y'all say "chee square test" or "Kai square test"

[hardy iron]

Chee

[vast wraith]

because the first thing you fsr pinges me with is “i hate doctors” and you’re asking questions in an annoying manner

[scarlet thistle]

It’s true

I don’t think I was particularly annoying. Just normal

[scarlet thistle]

They ruined my nose for nothing

And then pretended they did a good job

[undone pike]

@karmic compass hey! did you mean to ping you here?

so i want to solve an ODE of the form $\dv{y(t)}{t} = f(t, y)$

not partial derivatives. but i want to do it numerically with a higher-order method such as runge kutta

[fathom swallow]

Ginger

[shell hornet]

i know you will all mock me for this.. but i went to great lengths to attempt to force AI to solve the Reimann Hypothesis. and after a lot of prompting and back and forth between 5 different high level AIs including the deep research modes it finally got to a proof that now needs dissemination for rigorous peer review... Could other people get AI to do this, yes absolutely i dont see why not... Do i understand what its produce? i couldnt understand it if the world depended on it. Why am i telling you all this, am i a troll? no i just thought it was interesting that a layman person like me can coax an AI into getting so far on such a problem.. Do i realize that probably thousands of people think they have gotten AI to make a proof for RH already and they all ultimately likely fail when scrutinized, yep... but its already failed for me about 20 times, this time all 5 AIs concur and can't debunk it(including o4-mini).

[old oak]

why is this interesting?

[shell hornet]

of course its interesting. AFK bbl.

[old oak]

I mean, i find it interesting that you keep peddling this here, surely you have realized by now we are not receptive audience.

[icy heron]

How do you know it "got so far on such a problem"? You say yourself that you don't understand it

[true wedge]

whatever it spits out is either incorrect (likely) or something we already know (rare)

[willow crystal]

because the attempt to try to make AI solve the Reimann Hypothesis is amusing

[shell hornet]

I believe it has got so far because of how many times it ran into roadblocks and problems but then i forced it to solve them over and over. pushing the boundaries.

[willow crystal]

do you mean something like machine learning?

[shell hornet]

I think the points of contention is 1. solving RH has prize money attached to it(although i think the rules should state that if its solved by AI the prize money should not be given). 2. real mathematicians feel threatened by AI. I've seen this in other fields such as 3D modeling and rendering (which i was in and still am to an extent) and musicians(i play guitar in a band and used to teach it, but since im in a covers band and dont write new music i dont care about AI).

[old oak]

So basically you think it got far because it generated text that claimed it did?

And other statistical text generators generated positive outputs when prompted to generate evaluations?

[shell hornet]

no because the AIs several of them kept cross checking and finding the problems, and then i coaxed them into overcoming the problems with new ideas.

[icy heron]

But you could just use AI to solve RH, then claim the prize. Why haven't anyone done this?

[shell hornet]

I bet you cant! and whos going to do the hard work of peer review and scrutinizing the math?? surely they deserve the prize if anything

[willow crystal]

How exactly would you know what the AI is saying is right though?

[shell hornet]

i dont KNOW the AI is right, its at the stage where all the AIs agree its ready for a peer review because the AIs cant find an issue with it

[icy heron]

You need to consider that the reason mathematicians don't use LLMs for proofs isn't because they feel threatened, it's just because it doesn't work

[willow crystal]

So an AI said the AI's work is right for peer review?

[old oak]

So basically you kept randomly generating text until the randomly generated output was "this is correct"?

[icy heron]

of course feel free to trust the AI over what actual mathematicians are telling you, but then don't be offended when people on this server dismiss what you're saying out of hand

[willow crystal]

I don't think an AI can even come close to solving the RH due to how open-ended the problem is

[shell hornet]

i have a problem with that perspective... you're basically saying that pursuing AGI is fruitless and can't work. But why all the investment then, why do thousands of engineers dedicate themselvse to tryign to reach AGI if it doesnt work.. how do you KNOW it doesnt work.. can you prove it?

[old oak]

I think a sufficiently advanced and properly designed AI could, but it's extremly unlikely that an LLM can

[willow crystal]

Hmm true, an LLM is not going to solve it for sure

[icy heron]

"why all the investment"... I ask myself that question all the time

[true wedge]

a machine can verify a proof but not an llm

[shell hornet]

and you have a point... i think Google Deepmind have something called alpha proof or something? it combines neuro symbolic AI with the usual LLM type AI.

[true wedge]

alpha proof is for Olympiad type problems

[icy heron]

AlphaProof is a very different architecture compared to chatgpt and other LLMs

[old oak]

Have you considered learning anything about AI, Machine Learning, LLMs and Riemann Hypothesis before you came in here with bold claims?

[willow crystal]

Anyways, you made a claim though it's up to you to prove it though

[icy heron]

If chatGPT could solve RH, why did Google spend so much money on alphaproof, only to get a silver in a math olympiad? If you can prove the Riemann hypothesis surely you could ace that test

[willow crystal]

not us disproving it

[shell hornet]

yes. And that is why im not claiming that i know the AI is right.. im claiming i believe its potentially got very far, and would now need human experts to look at it... but i realize its a ridiculus claim because thousands of people are using AI to try to solve RH and many probably claim it did

[icy heron]

Good, and the human experts are telling you that the proof doesn't work

[long matrix]

and everyone else is claiming they don't hold the same beliefs as you

[old oak]

But why should we put any stock in what you believe about a solution to a problem you don't understand generated by a tool you don't understand?

[shell hornet]

Good question. I think its beacuse at the time of development of alpha proof they believe they needed neuro symbolic ai or other architectures to do better at math.. But i also beleive they could have not forseen that ever more sophisticated LLMs might through emergent complexity beging to figure out math.

[shell hornet]

you shouldnt believe it... and im waiting for you to perhaps ask for tid bits on what it has said so you can perhaps make up your own mind

[true wedge]

so the developers at Google making alpha proof didn't understand ai and math well enough to realize that AI can solve rh

[icy heron]

No, it's because LLMs can't do math... but believe what you want, it's clear that what we're saying doesn't get through

[shell hornet]

AI can reason... reasoning is enough to do math......

[old oak]

So far you have done nothing to persuade us that this particular, almost certainly wrong, proof of RH is worth the effort of verification any more than the tens of thousands of other, almost certainly wrong, proofs of RH

[long matrix]

and that is where you're wrong.

[willow crystal]

AI can only follow code that has been programmed to do

It's not capable of reasoning

[long matrix]

horrid explanation

[willow crystal]

hmmm

you explain it than

[long matrix]

no u

just ask the ai why it cant reason

[old oak]

If I want to read an LLM proof of RH I can generate my own

[true wedge]

It can reason but it isn't nearly powerful enough for large scale problems like rh

[shell hornet]

well i mean im not going to spam a wall of AI output here unless its asked for... and im kind of also cautious about people running off with it feeding it into their LLM and submitting it for peer review then running of with a prize

[true wedge]

Reason as in, construct a sound proof and verify it

[long matrix]

even Grok's gonna partially admit it doesn't

[limber thunder]

surely anyone in the technical teams that developed AlphaProof knows that the symbolic aspects of math don't encompass the entirety of math, hence why it's been very effective for certain subclasses of problems e.g. in diophantine equations iirc, but unlike some in this convo I don't think they've ever claimed something like "AI can solve the RH" or any other decades-long standing open problem

[old oak]

Very wise, I recommend that you publish your work on vixra

[long matrix]

the symbolic aspects of math don't encompass the entirety of math
tell me more

[limber thunder]

usually this kind of problem requires new perspectives or new theory to be built beforehand

[peak tide]

typical chatgpt math:

[shell hornet]

its just outputting what some human has said years ago written somehwere in its training data.. Obviously because AI is just glorified autocomplete

[old oak]

This is just sad

[willow crystal]

tbf i should have clarified what i meant

[limber thunder]

basically the way humans mostly do math isn't 100% symbolic but also partly through metaphor, visualization, abstraction, intuition, etc

[long matrix]

but we haven't done math yet that cannot be symbolized, no?

[limber thunder]

it's the whole reason why people claim conjectures

[true wedge]

In theory you can do everything symbolically but that's like working with assembly code

[long matrix]

just a pain in the ass to symbolize

or pointless

[limber thunder]

yeah I suppose so

[visual topaz]

omg you're gonna solve the BSD conjecture!?

[shell hornet]

yea but heres what i think is interesting.. LLMS are a a layered neural network.. So are human brains, just vastly more complex.

[limber thunder]

... but this for a person is much more effective than just symbol-pushing through the problem like a neural network would

[visual topaz]

Every machine, including humans, is an input-output converter too. (aka this says nothing)

[old oak]

Well, some human brains are more complex

[limber thunder]

so are human brains
according to one currently dominant model of the human brain perhaps

[long matrix]

yes, mine is

[limber thunder]

I think many people conflate model with reality in this kind of thing

[long matrix]

maybe not yours

[old oak]

Of course not, I'm an owl

[willow crystal]

mine runs in O(n!) complexity

[visual topaz]

You are clearly a perceptron

[old oak]

Mine runs in O(wl) complexity

[shell hornet]

LLMs are a black box

[visual topaz]

They are not

[shell hornet]

2 trillion parameter black box neural network.. how can you difinitievly say what they can and cant do

[limber thunder]

I think a far more accurate statement is that even leading neuroscientists don't fully understand the human brain yet, even though models based in Bayesian (and other kinds of statistical) inference and mathematical neural networks can be a good approximation

[visual topaz]

because my data center bills say so

[shell hornet]

Leading neuroscientists dont fully understand the fruitfly brain even after they painstakingly scanned the connectome in great detail, they are clueless in how it actually functions and cant simulate it inside a supercomputer. But dont worry because they're going to make an AGI in a few years.

[true wedge]

llm prove riemann hypothesis
monkey on typewriter write hamlet

[long matrix]

look, there are some tasks LLM's are great for

one example is deciphering ancient languages

now CLEARLY

[visual topaz]

Is hamlet any good

[long matrix]

its obvious they gonna be good at that shit

[true wedge]

I'd say so, sure

[visual topaz]

don't see it in the usual top 100 books of all time

[true wedge]

Especially when written by monke 🐒

[long matrix]

but CLEARLY they dont ducking math

not in 2025

[limber thunder]

anyway I'm done yapping, I just think it's unreasonable to expect LLMs to come up with novel proofs that greatly change human understanding of maths (such as a valid proof/disproof of the RH) with their current architectures and use of resources, though I can see how they could be an useful tool today and in the near future

[true wedge]

what list 😭

[visual topaz]

any

if it does appear I must have consciously blocked it

[willow crystal]

shakespeare is dead both literally and figuratively

[true wedge]

cmon Hamlet is solid

[visual topaz]

in what sense

[shell hornet]

they probably thought it was unreasonable for LLMs to do what they are doing today,, if you asked experts just 8 years ago? they would probably laugh and say no chance.

[true wedge]

plot

characters

[willow crystal]

Hmm i do think watching a play of Hamlet is fun

[true wedge]

idk

[willow crystal]

not reading it though

[true wedge]

yeah ofc

sucks to have to read it in high school (I had to)

[visual topaz]

7 or 8 years ago this was found
https://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805

[willow crystal]

same :/

[visual topaz]

I don't see how experts 'laugh' at anything

[visual topaz]

Prefer Iliad

[shell hornet]

yea, i probably should have said 10 years ago

[visual topaz]

10 years ago was the end of an AI winter iirc

Anyway

If they prove anything with LLMs

it's likely not going to happen on your raspberry pi

[shell hornet]

btw you cant get Gemini 2.5 pro to solve RH unless you give it custom system instructions...

wait till you see what i used as its system instructions

[visual topaz]

And if you need a data center to prove it

Well, the fact is you don't have permanent guaranteed access to it

[limber thunder]

yeah I think if you showed current LLMs to someone in AI winter years they'd be impressed lol

[visual topaz]

In other words

[limber thunder]

and for sure things will develop as decades come

[visual topaz]

You're likely not going to prove RH

[shell hornet]

grok did something liek that for a few users i think they called it big brain.

[visual topaz]

Why don't you start working on something more meaningful

Like HBM4

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[shell hornet]

its proven RH.

[old oak]

We only have your word for it

And you don't understand its proof

[shell hornet]

its wrote the paper

[visual topaz]

[willow crystal]

the AI wrote the paper?

[visual topaz]

is this crank maximal hour

[shell hornet]

yep

[icy heron]

and I'm assuming you're gonna keep that secret? In case someone will steal it?

[old oak]

Then I presume the million dollars will go to the AI?

[visual topaz]

He will never share with the world, much unlike Perelman, the ultimate good guy

[shell hornet]

i think they need to change the rules. That if AI solves it, nobody gets prize money

[visual topaz]

Perelman is the only one who actually adheres to purity of math and shows it in his actions

[visual topaz]

You think wha

[willow crystal]

so are you not going to send it because of the rules

..?

[shell hornet]

naa i will just keep it a secret unless you all agree for me to post the entire paper right here

[old oak]

I certainly don't agree.

[visual topaz]

no one cares about your paper

[old oak]

If I want to read LLM slop, I can generate my own

[visual topaz]

Btw

I still don't have a single citation to my paper

Other than literature review

Lit review cites are not real cites

[shell hornet]

The verdict is out.. im not posting the paper

[old oak]

You should post it on vixra and/or r/numbertheory

[visual topaz]

When are you going to start on the next ultimate problem, like Roko's basilisk

[old oak]

That way you'll be publically identifiable as an author so you can point to the dates when someone tries to claim credit later

[visual topaz]

You don't need much to be publically identifiable

[shell hornet]

i dont know what that is, but theres no reason why not i shall try to get it to solve the other clay prize problems and such

[visual topaz]

You only need an ORCID (it's free)
Then on any of your paper you link back to that ORCID

[old oak]

Have you considered using it to solve a problem you actually understand?

[visual topaz]

Even if you're super unaffiliated the ORCID basically stays forever

[visual topaz]

Something tells me you're not very acquainted with AI

[shell hornet]

as a test?

[old oak]

I'm sure they've read hundreds of press releases

[visual topaz]

PR Newswire best scientific news of all time

[willow crystal]

is this slop to you?

[old oak]

Surely there is something you can use LLMs for in your own field to benefit humanity

[visual topaz]

You're gonna make headlines!!!

[old oak]

Yes

[shell hornet]

I've done loads with it. many threads tackling problems.

[visual topaz]

Wonder how it knows today is Apr 2025. Really wonder how they connect the function calling in chatgpt

[shell hornet]

Im not sayign ive actioned any of them yet.

[visual topaz]

Can you name a single real problem

....................

[old oak]

So basically you've done the easy part?

[shell hornet]

im not saying ive actioned them. yea ive done the easy part.

[willow crystal]

same tbh

[unborn meteor]

they just give it the date in the system prompt lol

[old oak]

Any plans for doing the hard part or are you hoping to sucker someone else into it?

[visual topaz]

oh yeah, you could just feed it pre-call I guess, makes sense

[shell hornet]

somebody else shall do the hard part. i shall license out my ideas.

[old oak]

You will go far in life

[unborn meteor]

yeah https://www.reddit.com/r/PromptEngineering/comments/1j5mca4/i_made_chatgpt_45_leak_its_system_prompt/

[visual topaz]

No you need to understand, I'm not cleaning the Ganges because the LLM is going to do it!

[shell hornet]

put the LLM into a robot.

[visual topaz]

That is SO going to clean the Ganges frfr

[old oak]

I think the idea is that the LLM is going to generate a plan to do it, and a nebuluous someone is going to successfully implement it

[willow crystal]

that someone might be me

[shell hornet]

reminds me of a pattern ive seen in AI

[vast wraith]

and they would say the same today

[old oak]

You mean delusional blowhards making grandiose claims with no concrete follow-through?

[long matrix]

The future is here with Apple Intelligence

[visual topaz]

There is concrete follow through. There is concretely nothing

[long matrix]

Your phone is (not) smarter than you

[shell hornet]

no! The pattern i see is AI doing all the easy jobs, but no AI no matter how smart doing the hard jobs that actually keep civilization going.. from electriican to plumber to farmer and more.

Ai cant do any of the hard jobs

[willow crystal]

isn't solving the riemann hypothesis a hard job though

[visual topaz]

the fuck, solving RH is the easy job?

[old oak]

Clearly not, hundreds of people manage it every day

[shell hornet]

Correction, all the hard jobs that also nobody really wants to do or likes to do.

[visual topaz]

I'd put cleaning Ganges as easier than RH

Honestly

I should ask some Indians

[willow crystal]

ask Ramanujan lol

[old oak]

So in pursuit of your dreams of us achieving the post-scarcity society, you've chosen to also ignore the hard part; why?

[shell hornet]

ok you got me...

Conclusion
The proof is logically sound and appears to be correct based on the arguments presented. The strategy of deriving a contradiction between the conditional (RH false) and unconditional asymptotics of λn\lambda_n\lambda_n
is robust, with no glaring mathematical errors. The use of Li’s criterion and the two definitions of λn\lambda_n\lambda_n
is well-executed, and the contradiction in both rational and irrational cases is convincing.

[willow crystal]

How did you check for this btw

[true wedge]

"is convincing"

not hard to convince an ai of things

[shell hornet]

its all to be taken with a grain of salt... I checked it simply by feeding the paper written by Gemini pro 2.5 into Grok 3. make of it what you will

[willow crystal]

why not just check the proof with an actual mathematician though?

[long matrix]

what the crank