A lot of the attribution bias has been one direction when in reality it's bidirectional. More people should study actual psych ideas and not rely on generalizations based on their own limited perspective.

You don't have to agree with leftists but ignoring the premise just lets you talk past the point.

Mathematics and proof is the basis of scientific reasoning. The proof of concept that AI can automate such a nontrivial part of human analysis is the further application of these computational capabilities to the scientific method, of which math, reason, and logic are the foundations.

They are not two ball games. That is why actual scientists are seeing the cards. Go read any essay last month written by physicists. Let alone mathematicians. The entire tower of Babel is at stake and many serious scientists (academics, not the industry ones) are keenly aware. This is entirely separate from hype and slop which are also a very real problem--also, it is not the contradiction that lay arguments simplistically and incorrectly frame it as.

Example: you assert data and simulations are needed. Who do you think designs and obtains those things? Human beings. Now imagine an AI with the power of solving Navier-Stokes, a generic AI able to iterate on the very framework where those things are obtained. That would be the scale where progress will happen. It is basically another argument for a type of RSI. I don't know about you but this ought to be terrifying and amazing at once.

update: I really love that within 2 minutes the response to a genuine comment is to downvote/deplatform it, how inimical to rational disagreement and fragile pseudointellectualism our (supposedly STEM) community has become.

It is not to say the approach has been wrong (as the author strongly believes in his reframing) but that this clarity does matter for purposes of, ahem, mathematical understanding.

The truth of the matter is somewhere else and if only people were actually a bit better rounded philosophically and politically they would not be rehashing such talking points on either side of the controversy.

In other words, the move to experience and cultural relativist statements about "math culture" is exactly the cynical ideological move that an academic cleric does. It deflects from examination of where these narratives come from and attribute it to e.g. "math history" or "math culture" or just "something specific to math itself" etc, etc.

Neoliberal intellectuals love to attribute toxicity to the Enlightenment. They can't help it.

If you accept that as a premise then obviously you agree with their truth.

If you don't accept toxicity as somehow intrinsic to the subject but rather the structural conditions, say, of post-neoliberalized academia at large, and certain faculties being only a bit more susceptible (if even, or just different, say compare humanities vs STEM reactions in the future), then the whole comment reads as a conflation.

Instead the simpler answer is that academia at large values freedom of inquiry and other Enlightenment notions which are privileged compared to outside of academia. But that is not toxicity, it's just intellectual integrity and the academic autonomy in pursuit of one's interests avocationally. The toxicity comes from the intellectual profession having to function as a modern clerisy for socioeconomic reasons under post-neoliberal capitalism.

People may conflate the two attributions and that is a deep mistake, in my opinion. In fact the conflation due to internalized oppression easily creates and explains this kind of resentful, dismissive tone response that is a distortion of the true situation.

They are great devices but they cost more. So you would not see them "recommend" in those industries you cite. Also it is reductive to accuse Apple of marketing.

What's much more plausible is that despite being a great product it also costs more. Not marketing nor the fact of being a minority.

It's also weird because your argument disingenuously ignores the wealth of HN commentary in the past about how great the M-chip MacBooks are. It's like ignoring actual reasons and doing this kind of armchair technical market analysis to prove one's point. It's a troll intellectual move to attribute success to marketing and failure to "because it is unpopular". Seeing your other replies in this thread suggests a common pattern of bias, not a one-off.