Otherwise the most common vocab size would be equal to one.

For god's sake, don't commit crimes while you're committing crimes.

The US may have this dual incentive structure since it wants to build its tech giants while limiting their control, but the EU doesn't. The arrival of a foreign tech social media giant might make the legislation a bit more palatable to pass.

It will undoubtedly be complex to regulate all dark patterns away. But there are a few obvious, easy wins. It'd be a shame to make perfect the enemy of good.

That's why it's interesting to try to pick apart where the moat is.

But the key is that proponents of both definitions can convert freely between the two in their understandings.

Mathematicians do care about how much "black magic" they're invoking, and like to use simple constructions where possible (the field of reverse mathematics makes the central object of study). For example, Wiles' initial proof of Fermat's last theorem used quite exotic machinery called "inaccessible cardinals", which lie outside of ZFC. Subsequent work showed they weren't needed.

Another good example of mathematicians caring which 'house of cards' their results are built on is the search for an "elementary" proof of the prime number theorem (i.e. showing it doesn't rely on complex analysis).

Edit: here's a great related discussion on MathOverflow, bringing in analogies from CS: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/90820/set-theories-withou...

As far as I've seen, the group law is what makes elliptic curves special. Are they the _only_ flavour of curve that has a nice geometric group law? (let's say aside from really simple cases like lines through the origin, where you can just port over the additive group from R)

If we're being literal, accuracy is (number correct guesses) / (total number of guesses). Maybe the folks at turnitin don't actually mean 'accuracy', but if they're selling an AI/ML product they should at least know their metrics.

If a model is useful, I’d like to see it being used (outside academia, where there’s minimal penalty for complexity and a high emphasis on novelty).

If models like these are widely adopted at social media companies or news agencies, it’s fair to say OP’s take isn’t valid. Otherwise they may have a point.

There are degrees of awfulness between "the end of all mankind" and "nothing to see here", but it seems like there's a taboo on calling those shades of grey out when it comes to climate change.

If you draw the line at the year 2100, things are uncomfortable but maneagable. If your horizon is 2300 or 2500, you get a different story. But you would hope that in tha sort of time frame, we have time to adapt.

An expensive liability? Definitely. A civilization or nation ending event? Unlikely.