@jdoliner A lean compilation is simply a check that something has been proven. What that something is doesn't escape the requirement of being understood.
@jdoliner You can believe something for a few reasons. The richest form is that you actually understand it. The lesser form is that you accept it because people that you trust understand it. What do you call believing in something that no human expert believes? That's insanity.
Therefore, the author must write the proof to be as conducive to this (to helping the other build that scaffold) as possible. Anything less is at worst an incoherent waste of readers time (inconsiderate) and at best a very poorly written race-to-first that shouldn't get credit.
A successful lean compilation is just that. What it means requires interpretation. Whether that interpretation maps to "solves navier stokes" is not a fact decided in a vacuum.
Connection to the other is a required ingredient. Someone else must ultimately agree, and not by force or intimidation. But, because they have reproduced the scaffold and used their imagination to connect all of the pieces from the root axiom to the ultimate conclusion.
@sanyatimar A good ACL balances security and trust. You want to stop hands that have no business touching the important stuff, but you also want to empower those who have the ability to turn things around in times of need.
@NKY_Leftist So, perhaps trying to frame everything in the context of consent, with consent as the absolute decision variable, is not worth the effort because it's actually too complicated and certainly not amenable to empirical falsification.
@NKY_Leftist I think this is a decent argument and it calls into question the utility of consent as a binary predicate.
With intoxication at the extreme end, which itself has varying degrees of impairment to our agency, there's also depression, stress, and anxiety.
I was trained that a proof, fundamentally, is a bid for understanding. If you don't care that no one understands you, why write anything down at all? What good is a proof with no prospective reader?
This is why, at least among my colleagues, we are disappointed by terse assertions and dismissive remarks. We praise good exposition. Frustratingly, the academic meat grinder produces a lot of dense jargon-packed junk on Arxiv and we've been hurriedly "publishing or perishing" long before the AIs entered the scene. However, the Navier-Stokes incident crystalizes this badness. The rush to achieve the outcome without the required labor of sharing and being understood. An authority which deems a written proposition true, or else.
Even if the lean proof is correct, and "the AI can understand it" (I will not define this) and, better yet, the AI can use the knowledge to its advantage, shouldn't we recoil at the thought of handing the reigns of mastery over to our simulacrum?
That proofs of useful results trickle down is least among the concerns if we concede that humans do not deserve sufficient exposition, or that anyone should accept the result as true without understanding it first.
Fundamentally, existentially, we have to radically assert the dignity of human life and ensure that we do not become subjects to the AI or to the powers that wield it.
https://t.co/lSX07XpGNz
@briantimar What should the US call its version of the ChangjiβGuquan link (the link responsible for powering the homes of the New Englanders from Nevada)?
For those affected by the severe flooding in Indonesia, Starlink is providing free service to new and existing customers through the end of December. Weβre also working with the Indonesian government to rapidly deploy terminals and restore connectivity to the hardest-hit areas on Sumatra β https://t.co/JQolMx7I0J
Which experiments suggest that light behaves like a particle? I'm trying to understand where the "light is just a wave in E+B" explanation breaks down. Taking this with some idea of "electrons have specific states, and those states resonate at specific frequencies" seems to work.
Last month AIM hosted a family day, and I was able to bring my son to see autonomous mega-scale earthmoving technology in action. I am grateful for AIM, and very excited about what we are building.
If you want to build autonomous mega-scale earth moving tech, connect with me.