Electric cars are still an underdeveloped form factor, so it makes sense that you can't get a car big enough for many passengers that is cheap enough for your budget (the battery needs to scale for passengers/weight, so the market so far is tiny cars or big expensive cars. The middle comes as the tech develops)

Eg here's a paper with a bunch https://people.csail.mit.edu/virgi/6.1420/papers/gajovermars...

So every grad student who has thought about geometry problems will have spent more time than they're proud to admit thinking about better algorithms only to realize it's 3sum hard.

It's not just "people have thought about one problem a bunch" - the whole class has been wailed on to no avail

> Don't be snarky

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

3sum hard was colloquially considered to be >= n^2

It's an absolutely unbelievable result! (Personally, this is more meaningful to me than Navier Stokes and feels more surprising - not that an agent did it but the result itself is extremely surprising!)

I don't think it's particularly controversial to say "written language is a meaningful technology advancement for a civilization", though!

There is a well-known story about this discussed in Radiolab [2010] https://radiolab.org/podcast/91725-words/transcript

Here's ChatGPT summarizing one section:

> Younger signers had developed a richer vocabulary for mental states—concepts like believe, remember, forget, understand. They were much better than the original older signers at tasks requiring them to reason about what another person thinks or knows. Later, as the older signers picked up those mental-state terms from younger people, some of them improved on the same tests. Senghas describes it as language giving them new insight into other people’s thinking and motivations.

I see several likely stories:

* Much animal communication is practical, descriptive of the present (nothing abstract, or very few abstract concepts)

* If a species could expand its communication, it would give it more powerful tools and allow for more meaningful conversation with humans

* If such a thing is possible, it will be extremely disruptive to that species

I think if you could communicate about abstract ideas with your dog, you could exchange bedtime stories. However, I don't think such a thing is possible today, and it's not clear what species (if any, besides humans) will, in fact, be able to learn such things

Attribution is not just a problem for LLMs in mathematics!

Tobi is where I first heard the concept: https://github.com/tobi/walgit

And he credits this Cursor post for giving him the ideas and says it's worth reading: https://cursor.com/blog/git-at-any-scale

Note: in related work, the East River Source Control team has posted about their vision for git as well: https://ersc.io/blog/what-comes-after-git

For Earth, the proof presented for NS is just our first attempt navigating from our previously known facts to the proof.

I expect we will be able to shorten it dramatically (most likely with human and AI insights), but I don't think we should read too much into the length. If you want a similar point of comparison, see the original proof (by humans) of Fermat's last theorem. It has been shortened significantly. This is normal.

Unfortunately, many of the largest voices against pangram simply don't like it because it gives their lies less credibility.

I don't mind reading llm writing, indeed, I read more llm writing per day than most. But if you're using LLMs to increase the level of slop (blog posts, comments, tweets, etc) then we should call people out.

It's a colossal waste of everyone's time and attention, and we should be mad about it.

Late edit: if people are actually writing and it's consistently flagged by pangram (this is a statement I have not yet seen validated), the pangram folks are extremely proactive and excited to understand what's going on. This notion that somehow the authors of slop are victims is complete nonsense.

"Weather forecasts should be banned because they can never reach 100% accuracy"

What's wild to me is that:

1. People are responding to this article like it's hitting a nerve

2. In most Ubers you already don't talk to the driver (yellow cabs are higher variance in NYC). Doesn't seem like anything's being lost in that case.

3. There are enormous safety benefits to waymo, mobility benefits for youth (and elderly) that are afforded by this technology. It's not clear why people argue "Uber" is better than waymo. A few years ago there were arguments against Uber! (A technology which, again, provides a huge benefit, especially if you live in an area where people were previously expected to go out for drinks and then drive home)

I think it's fair to point out real issues at these companies. But we should be clear-eyed about which technologies we want to accelerate vs slow down

Afaict that didn't happen so there's just lots of speculation

* (1) Mathematics, the true things known by humans

* Mathematics, the things that are true

* (3) Mathematics, the institution which gets funding and manages resources to expand and maintain 1

AI agents can discover more true things, but that doesn't necessarily expand 1 and it might undermine 3

If someone is worried about 3 and you're talking about 2, then you are talking past each other

There are many ways to stop progress and productivity

The only way to renew it is to make a new problem that is so hard systems and humans will be unable to solve it for the next ten years. And, in the spirit of trees, the best time to plant a tree is twenty years ago, the next best is today: we do need to start posing some hard math problems and deciding if they are interesting merely because there are challenging or because of something else (eg busy beaver problems are arbitrarily hard, but does solving them imply anything other than "another busy beaver problem was solved"?)