@msuvakov Sto ne spomenes da su usput pokrali beleske dva matemacira koji su se ovim bavili godinu danu... A koji su svoj rad zasnovali na radu dva druga matematicara.
@furstenheim@Deniz_Genlik Precisely why formalization is not a AI wonder, but human inginuity. We invented proof assistents, not AI. Then invented LLM that can relentlessly search the space defined by our system. Argument in few sentences that would reveil some new math insight would be wonder though.
@LeeGrimmAuthor@kalospepgod Yes, because the model behind it was fed with gazillion tons od dialogues and conversations. So, yes, its very impressive that is now able to uncompress it ...
@relizarov What is a proof, evidence, or at least some argument for this? Such a bold and wannabe profound statement which aim to dispute the nobel prize winner, with the evidence being "trust me bro".
@PI010101 Actually, AI just discloused people who were proud thinking that mere computation, memorization, and repetition is inteligence. Unfortunately, it's a simplicitic definition, real breakthroughs do not follow this pattern or any other.
Just to emphasize how disorienting technical coding interviews can be, I once failed MY OWN FAVOURITE INTERVIEW QUESTION that I had asked zillions of Google candidates when it was asked of me elsewhere. I did not even recognize it as the same question until after the interview.🤦
@Mtnsbeyondmtns @dlowd@AnimaAnandkumar You did not say it, but it is based on your logic. You said that you want to make someone obsolete in science. So why then not making obsolete other guys as well? Then you tried to lower that a bit saying that it should be obsolete in teaching.
@Mtnsbeyondmtns @dlowd@AnimaAnandkumar Yes, people can be talented and shitty (for your taste). Completely unrelated. You’re forcefully mixing these two - because of his opinions you are trying to degrade his work. His work should only measured within the field and by people who are actually knowledgeable in the area.
@dlowd@AnimaAnandkumar So basically you are saying that someone’s attitude about something directly makes his/her contribution in a scientific field unrelevant regardless of quality of the contribution itself. So you’ve just repeated your first tweet ...