Dude was into anime in 1987?? Truly ahead of his time.

An error in the formalization would be a bug in lean. Which, as we know, certainly seems plausible (I've mused on if these giant proofs are incentivizing LLMs to find lean bugs to exploit), but at least it's a smaller surface area.

This is very odd, because it just doesn't match my experience with these systems at all. Yes, they do generally SOUND confident, but code (say) that's hard for me to understand is usually hard for the machine to understand as well, and while it is more indefatigable than I am, it's not brighter.

This mathematician is in a very good place to evaluate whether Fable gets it or not, but it's weird and counter to my experience.

If you read this article, the author is basically saying “the way this worked before was very opaque and probably almost no one figured it out, but _I_ knew how it worked, and so the change is bad for me”.

Do they have a good point that they have a valid use case? Yes. Do they have the only use case? No. Did Apple do this to try to make things better? Yes. That doesn’t make them “evil”, that makes them trying to make things better.

The dude keeps a continually automatically produced document of his takes on AI. He's not a skeptic overall. https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/ai-views.html . In this interview the interviewer describes him as an evangelist for AI in math and he doesn't disagree. https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/ai-views-interview.html

It seems like your inclination is to discount his experience with research mathematics. I agree with you that that's probably what Taleb would do - Taleb has a giant ego and basically operates under the assumption that everyone else has the same giant ego as he does but is (a) less honest about it (b) dumber than he is.

The chairs are also an insane amount of work but hey, you get chairs!

Questions of AI policy are all hard and anyone who confidently says they know the right thing to do is too confident. Tao's fallible like anyone else, but yeah, as voices to pay attention to go he's very good.

I agree it just feels weird to spend on “software” for home improvement, but sometimes it may make a bigger difference than the hardware!

Are we talking about whether nature is ever at equilibrium, or about how stable that equilibrium is?

A ball on the crest of a saddle is at equilibrium, but it isn't a very stable equilibrium.

Basically, are you saying the reality is that nature is always in flux, or that it doesn't take much to knock it toward a different stable state.

Maybe what you want is for the screen to support turning up brightness for just one part?

So… I guess you could make an argument that that merits higher pay, but it'd be saying it's due to his blackmail power.

I agree, but I think that’s kind of the objection. It can be tempting to write your code as little brainteasers but…

It’s too fragile. I may make some innocuous change, now the compiler cannot recognize the pattern and performance falls off the cliff.

I’d rather have the reliabile performance than the absolute fastest possible result. Then if there’s an issue I can catch and fix it reliably with profiling, not deal with a heisenbug based on whether the compiler can match the pattern.

Try it, iterate, figure it out. It'll be painful but so be it.