> ...

> Timothy Gowers (Collège de France, Cambridge)

https://gowers.wordpress.com/2026/09/17/why-i-didnt-sign-the...

Well perhaps we spent a bit too much time discussing the argument and neglected the incentives.

Or just a good bet that didn't pay off when textile manufacturing all went to Asia?

> API customers including Harvey and Legora will be able to build on Astra for Law, bringing this intelligence into their own products and workflows.

In other words: "no, no, we're not eating our children to prep for the IPO. Don't worry."

This is exactly the activity Tao and others worry will be hollowed out by instant "true/false" responses to novel questions.

But many folks just won't be motivated to attack or help digest solved problems because there's less extrinsic value in doing so. Tao and others argue that it's this human effort that finds human-relatable abstractions which spurn further investigation. Take the humans out of the loop, and they'll stay there, is the argument as I understand it.

I think you've set up a false dichotomy. I'd propose to you the middle ground that a lot of us are concerned that VC-backed AI slop is "solving" problems in indigestible ways that hollow out the core. This applies in OSS as well as mathematics.

This is easy to me. Truth should be the North Star. If there is a fundamental truth that can be found via mathematics, then the shortest route to that truth should be preferred. While LLMs are definitely capable of solving problems in search of truth, I agree with Tao that instant "true/false" results threaten to short-circuit the traditional avenues we have used to escape local minima in the search for truth. Their products may be the junk food that provides immediate satiation in exchange for long-term health. Perhaps it's wrong, though.

But to answer your question, roundabouts always require drivers approaching from all directions to slow down, lookout for cross traffic and assess other drivers' behavior. Stop lights have 2 modes that promise safe passage, and they can be set to prioritize routes.

I think Jevons paradox basically guarantees this in both countries. The difference between the two countries (in my theory) is how much responsibility they're willing to place on the drivers. The UK requires much more driver effort for good reasons I suggest in another thread.

Because the US largely "grew up with cars", the economy was built around the expectation that folks can drive to work. The population density of the US reflects this, and mass transit just doesn't work in small/middle America. That means everyone needs to be able to drive. If you can't drive, you can't work. That isn't the case in the UK, and you'll notice a lot of these "driver beware" analysis is explained by the fact that driving in the UK is seen as a privilege whereas it is a right in the US. This sort of "mild chaos" is prohibitive for a lot of would-be UK drivers, and they just take the bus.

This point is so under-appreciated. Roundabouts are really good in some cases, but they're over-utilized in England. Imagine if the US had roundabouts on the interstate and you're getting close.

Got 'em