Ofc the NYTimes feeds into the “AI” grift with this anthropomorphic BS.

Computers don’t have “delusions”. They make statistical computations on data from the internet that have no inherent relationship to facts, reality, etc. They’re untrustable, unreliable, etc. but definitely not “delusional”.

You better say you use Arch before you get banned.

Control has to be arbitrary and unaccountable to be absolute. Thus, palantir.

Taxes should be progressive

Yeah ofc. Why do you think the billionaires came up with this BS plan instead?

Wow the greediest scumbags on the planet lied about giving up their ill gotten power? I’m shocked! SHOCKED! \s

NYTimes going into a grifter spiral as usual with this BS anthropomorphism.

Well yeah they always have been. Literally genociding palestine right now among other attacks.

I’m surprised at how europeans think they’re any different.

Wow the state that’s half anti-science and half moron is reversing science that it never gave a shit about? I’m shocked. Shocked!

I think looking to CompSci is the right move, but I still don’t see many folks discussing computational complexity as a real, mathematical limit.

I think this viewpoint depends on assuming that math is primarily computation. I think our education system and stories reinforce this misconception. But another fundamental component is creation. People created axioms (eg. ZFC) as a foundation for mathematics, then they chose and named almost every mathematical concept based on that foundation. Sure, there are “computations” in some vague sense, but not in the sense of computation theory. Importantly there is no right answer. People have invented alternative systems and will continue to do so. But I haven’t seen a computer compute a better computer… Anyway I agree that computation is underrated especially in terms of proofs (see recent math competition). And increased computation has allowed for breakthroughs. I’m just saying the meta framework of creating the system, defining the terms, and choosing the computations is also a huge factor.

Clickbait. It’s not mathematicians. It’s a few fringe “mathematicians”.

“mathematicians”

I think though that it’s not clear whether the world is fundamentally discrete or continuous.

Or both, neither, something else, etc.

those who see continuous distributions as just an abstraction of a world that is inherently finite vs those who see finite steps as the approximation of an inherently continuous and infinitely divisible reality.

How about neither? Math is a formal system (like a game). It has no inherent relationship to “reality” or physics. There are only a few small areas of math that have been convincingly used in physical models, while the vast majority of mathematics is completely unrelated and even counter to physical assumptions (eg tarski paradox). Questions about the finiteness or divisibility of “reality” are scientific, not mathematical. Etc.

What are you actually doing?

Whose definition of “leftist”? The Communist Party of China

lmao. Ok, buddy.

I feel like there’s a big distinction between tech bros and, say, MAGA diehards.

What’s the distinction? They’re all collaborating towards the same goals. I think the only difference is that the rich “AI” grifters actually hang out with Trump.

• Trump says fewer regulations needed to win the AI race

“AI” is just another grift. Fash thrive on grifts, while leftism opposes exploiting people.

deleted by creator

Let the pigs have their mud.