You think if someone threw a sandwich at you and then just walked off, you'd be able to get in contact will law enforcement and get them to arrest the guy?
Well, is the current global economy aligned with the planet? Isn't AI's main effect (and soon robotics) to accelerate and intensify the existing processes?
I don't know what that looks like "post-scarcity" though, but it sounds like we're going to harvest natural resources even more efficiently.
No, not morons, but people who have built a career on string theory. At this point, even if they regret their decisions, it’s too late to turn back now.
Its clear from Retraction Watch that people at Cambridge failed to act when they should have. Hilary Cremin and Rhys Morgan knew about the plagarism but decided they did not need to do anything.
Sometimes the purpose of the proof is simply to demonstrate that some construct is a safe assumption for other more interesting work-- and could still serve that purpose even if it was entirely a black box.
One thing about human mathematicians is that they only publish positive results. Professors etc might have file drawers full of "negative results", but the incentives and bandwidth of human mathematicians makes publishing these useful results impossible.
In general though, LLMs do not have the same limitations and incentives as human mathematicians, and the next year's tsunami of change will make this abundantly. clear.
When people make these comments about string theory, are they at the forefront of quantum physics theory and have spent years on modern string theory? Or did they just watch a YouTube video and then keep parroting this?
I mean what do you expect, it's BBC. I'll eat my hat the day they actually report the facts as it is without exaggeration. I wouldn't even trust BBC without verifying the sources. Most of the time it's lying at best and propaganda at worst.
Paradox is a statement that can't be proved true or false; "this statement is false" is an example of Gödel statement. The argument doesn't work, because execution of a Turing machine can't be expressed as a Gödel number.
Most of the time when people try to define healthy food vs. junk food in a fair and unbiased way, the line gets drawn at "whole foods" vs "processed foods".
A typical burger meal is definitely processed food because the meat is processed mechanically and mixed from different sources (usually with added fat); the bun is made from refined flour and refined oils; and the fries are thinly-cut potatoes blanched and fried in more refined oils. (Not to mention a whole bunch of chemical additives which are the norm rather than the exception; and "hyperpalatability" tweaks which means the food is formulated to taste unnaturally good.)
You could perhaps argue that a home-made burger meal made using whole cuts of meat, a lean wholemeal bread dough, and potatoes roasted in animal fat could count as a healthy/whole food meal, but it would taste different to the typical hamburger meal we all associate with fast food.
Fast food also has an enormous marketing industry behind it which pushes it in unhealthy volume, with maximum convenience, and at (until recently, at least) affordable prices.
Outside of sci-fi, marketing proposals, and niches like "Elder care in Japan" there are very few humanoid robots. By contrast non-humanoid robots have been mass produced and used in industry for decades. Arms. Carts. Trollies.
No people. If you want something with fine motor control and dexterity, it's easier to make that the robot and then have another robot bring the workpiece to the arm than it is to build a single robot that can walk around and do it. There are compromises in human features because we're generalists.
We've had the hottest summer ever recorded (since the beginning of 20th century, more than 120 years ago) across Europe.
There is no "downward trend), it's going up, and will be for a while.
If humans have nothing to contribute then shared understanding is a pointless endeavor. It makes sense now in the "centaur" period where human + AI > AI alone, but when AI mathematicians are both more rigorous and more elegant, then taking the time dumbing down their proofs to a human level of understanding is like requiring that we ensure all our current proofs be understandable by a monkey.
The historical record shows that Arab war planners consistently depended on the West stepping in to restrain Israel. This was something that Nasser and the other Arab states in the 67 and 73 war explicitly talked about. This remains a core consideration of Arab actors in the region in their prosecutions of various hostilities against Israel.
A+ Thunderbird team! We absolutely needed an update. Maybe on the next moon mission NASA will send a functional email client instead of two broken ones.
> The entire point of writing proofs is for advancing human understanding.
Proofs also enable AIs to direct search and generate knowledge. Verifiability is immensely useful for keeping AI grounded.
One might imagine AI generating enormous numbers of hypotheses and then trying to prove or disprove them, and then mine that data for new abstractions and heuristics.
