I'm reading Information and Meaning in Evolutionary Processes by Harms and it goes off on how weak Dawkins is.

It also is de-facto the case today when logging in as per usual sometimes requires a captcha or additional verification.

One is to take the human out the OODA loop for cyber defense. Servlet libs (for example) are going to become fluid, self-modifying things w/ contracts that operate much differenlty from how they do today. The engineering practice around these things will need to change.

The second is that UX will be self-modifying. Just like how pi can modify itself, I can see this being a general practice for user-facing applications. Perhaps a text-box in which users can describe tweaks in can request changes to how the application functions. Engineering an application will focus on modeling the non-negotiables of how an application works, and providing the correct primitives for user-driven LLMs to modify software on the fly, as well as track and rollback changes. There'll also be funsies around how to ensure that ads get delivered regardless of the user trying to get rid of them.

A humble suggestion is to consider having this become an annotation layer on top of existing code or documentation.

https://github.com/bcabs/pictureCram

Higher math is exceptionally useful for cryptography, defense, econometrics etc. I have a hard time thinking of other motivations that would hold a candle against such things.

Is the idea that government (for my purposes : folks w/ a monopoly on violence) is sincerely interested in promoting human flourishing, and is invested in mathematics insofar as it is a pure expression of human curiosity? I can also maybe see the glorification through monument building angle. If we're talking about math literacy in the population - that's distinct in my mind from higher mathematics.

It's dangerously naive to believe that science and math are pursued for majority benign purposes. No one here knows about Grothendieck?

Governments are invested in solving mathematical problems for practical purposes. Up to now, achieving these practical purposes relied on mathematicians doing their mathematician thing, which is better defined as a social activity than the achievement of a practical result. Now, governments can achieve similar practical results w/o the need of the social activity.

I don't believe it to be productive to think of the problem wrt AI or AI-company alignment. These conflicts always existed, but they were easy enough to paper over and believe in heavily subsidized fictions that folks in government ever cared about things that mathematicians cared about.

Core use-case : push a message every time my dog is eating my shoes.