aa retweeted
Proving once again that the online world created by billionaires and Russian troll farms is not the real world, tonight's Warsaw protest against the far-right.
aa retweeted
My name is Local Maximus
Commander of six RTX 3090s
Owner of 256GB RAM
Servant to no API
And I will have my free "Hello, World!" in this life or the next
Very Ironic, a startup "founder" working on the healthcare field complaining about the right of employees to get sick days.
European hiring rules are genuinely insane.
For example - if you own a company in the Netherlands and one of your employees gets sick, you are required to pay at least 70% of their wages for up to 2 years.
If they can't go back to work after 2 years and you haven't done enough for their reintegration, you pay their wages for 1 more year. And you can't fire them until after that extra year!
aa retweeted
Io un Presidente del Consiglio che dice NO agli aiuti militari all'Ucraina NON LO VOTO!
Definitivo, senza ombra di dubbio.
aa retweeted
Brilliant take by Terence Tao on Open AI's recent math release.
In 1993, Andrew Wiles announced a proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. Months later, experts reading it found an error. It took him another year, with Richard Taylor, to fix it.
The proof became a proof because people had to read it line by line. The talks and workshops were part of how it got to be true.
A proof now costs hours. Understanding it still costs years, and the experts who pay that cost never asked for the result.
aa retweeted
BREAKING: OpenAI’s solution to Navier–Stokes does not match its Lean verification.
The most important article to read today is not one of OpenAI’s 700 AI-generated math papers.
It is this other paper, making a deep and worrying point:
A Lean-verified proof does not automatically validate the proof written in natural language, nor does it mean that the formal statement captures the intended theorem.
During translation, an AI can change an assumption, weaken a statement, or replace the argument entirely.
It can hallucinate another theorem.
Lean correctly verifies the result.
But the proved result may no longer be what the paper claims.
This is a general problem. Things get spicy when the authors examine OpenAI’s proposed Navier–Stokes solution.
They identify at least two mismatches between the written intermediate results and their Lean counterparts:
One estimate claims that four additional input derivatives suffice. The Lean version requires five: a weaker result.
A pressure-flux estimate is obtained through a different bound, and proved through a different argument.
It is not clear whether these mismatches invalidate the entire proof.
But they raise an important issue.
OpenAI is flooding us with claimed revolutionary breakthroughs. Yet nobody knows whether the proofs are correct or whether they prove what they claim to be proving.
Epistemia at scale.
*
Paper in the first reply
