AI just proved that even high level mathematics is autistic funtime of abstract lego blocks, which is disappointing from an engineer's perspective. I always thought that high level math utilized complex ontologies and metaphysics but it was all a lego game.
>>17081530Profoundly retarded take. Once you add external validation tools into the mix (as they do with AI slop proofs) you can solve any problem using the monkeys-on-typewriters method, including any engineering problem. By your logic, engineers aren't even autists but actual sub-retards since their problem can be solved using a RNG.
>>17081539I know that, it's just as a non pro mathematician I thought higher math utilized more abstract concepts that have to do with metaphysics and ontology. As an engineer I thought mathematicians were high level, rigorous, philosophers and not just playing with abstract duplo blocks.
>>17081548>I thought higher math utilized more abstract conceptsWho do you think came up with all the mountains of abstract concepts chatbots use to generate proofs? Now quit being a tard.
>>17081530>ontology>metaphysics>mathAnon, they make up premises in their head. They make up rules in their head. Then they play out said fanfiction in their head for kicks.The only saving grace these ultra autists have is that their hobby just happens to be the only thing we know that can adequately model reality. If it aren't for this fortuitous fact these chuds would all be flipping burgers instead of swimming in indirect STEM bucks.
>>17081539Naw, they can't even do that (brute force) well. I'd agree with you if any AI math "breakthroughs" actually were worth a damn.
>>17081551Define reality.
>>17081570Define "define". Retard.
>>17081581Im not joking, what is reality?
>>17081539not really, engineering has fuzzy wuzzy reality concernsthere is no hard definition of the solution to an engineering problem
>>17081530Math research is like reverse engineering, where you understand how some of it works and then trial and error educated guess things to try and work out the rest
>>17081602>not reallyYes, really.>there is no hard definition of the solution to an engineering problemYes, there is. If it serves its function, survives the relevant stress tests and respects whatever constraints (cost, material availability, ease of construction), it's a solution to the problem. All of these can be simulated in principle.
>>17081601I'm not joking, what is a "definition"?
>>17081610>survives the relevant stress tests and respects whatever constraints (cost, material availability, ease of construction),None of this is well-defined. It depends on human interpretation and highly situational factors.
>>17081570>>17081601>what is reality, defineThe physical experiential chain via taste, touch, sound, sight..etc. Modeling reality means mapping observed patterns in said chain so as to know what experiences will reliably reproduce what other experiences, which is what science and empiriacism is all about. Math as a language so far happens to be unparalleled at this task.This is why we keep the mathies fed (as opposed to their obsession over "elegant solutions")
>>17081570you always somehow understand reality if someone steals your money. all you mfs suddenly understand objective reality at that point.unless you lose your money you can afford acting like absolute faggots about reality. but when someone take your shit or fuck your wife all of a sudden you somehow know objective reality. funny that
>>17081621All of it is well-defined. You will never be a scientist. You will never be an engineer. You will never be STEM-adjacent. But most painfully for you, you will never be a "philosopher" or form any relevant insight on any matter.
>>17081636You sound buttblasted.... Engineering problems are not well-defined like maths problems are. If you can't see that you're an idiot. The constraints, stress tests etc, are based on heuristics and assumptions that are not entirely rigid.
>>17081530I'm far too dumb to engage productively with this conversation, but I remember when in HS practicing competition level math problems, I had a friend who would work out geometry problems with coordinate math and equations - that is, there always used to be an elegant solution, requiring no more than some insight, and knowledge of Euclidian geometry, but this guy would get stumped, and then write down the problem as a set of 12 equations, then work out the solution, the process which usually was painful, but possible, and yielded no triumph or insight.I think AI math is kinda like that, it chips away at this shit, then vomits up an ugodly tome of spaghetti Lean proof, which is of little actual value, as mathematicians still need to comb through the whole thing, and assemble it into actual insights.
>>17081628This is a valid definition. Why was it hard for the retard >>17081612
>>17081530i like boobies
>>17081530>>17081539Nice bait, Sherlock FrogYou understand formalism.I can tell you do.
>>17081666>a machine incapable of insight fails to produce insight on its ownNo shit. You figure that all out by yourself?
>>17081714they look kinda retarded ngl
>>17081539>you can solve any problem using the monkeys-on-typewriters methodThen why is it the AI solving all the problems and monkeys-on-typewriters have never once solved anything or even produced a coherent sentence?
>>17081666If mathematician assembled actual insights by combing through AI, that AI by definition provided actual value. You are basically saying ore has no value because it has to be refined to provide value.
>>17081824This is fallacious. The AI results could be entirely references to others works and its contribution is the same contribution as a google search. In fact, it could be far worse by being detrimental to the activity as well because what if there is some complicated logical entanglement that turned out to be false. Now the AI not only did not help, but hindered progress.
>>17081836>if some ore might contain impurities, then all ore is valueless
>>17081539>By your logic, engineers aren't even autists but actual sub-retards since their problem can be solved using a RNG.yes
>>17081648You will never be a "philosopher". You just don't have what it takes, genetically. Sorry.
>>17081814I can tell I hurt you. :^)
>>17081840>if mathematician assembled actual insight by combing through AI, that AI by definition provided actual valueThis is the claim and it is refuted because while it is possible that insights arise from combing through AI, it is possible that those insights could have been found by other means that would have been more valuable in some sense: It takes less time, it is more direct, etc. This makes the value negative, a detriment.What if a mathematician reads your schizophrenic word vomit and derives value from it. Did you contribute?Can't blame logic because you can't parse it.
>>17081880I can tell you are projecting you own emotional imbalance since you can't cite an instance where monkeys typed anything coherent let alone anything that solved any problem so you choose to talk about me instead of backing up your retarded claims about monkeys on typewriters.
>>17081893>you might find more ore somewhere that is more pure and easier to refine, so that means the more impure ore has a negative value instead of being a bit less valuable than the purer ore
>>17081896You're gonna be seething about it for weeks, subhuman brown animal. :^)
>>17081899No, I will wait for actual evidence and you will seethe endlessly about how you can't produce it while continuing to bring up retarded points about monkeys that you can't actually prove.
>>17081903Notice how your brown insect mental illness is forcing you to keep replying even though everything you shit out is ignored. :^)
>>17081905No, I notice you keep replying and seething instead of producing any actual evidence just like I predicted and I predict you will keep making retarded posts that completely lack substance since you can't back up your retard intuition with anything substantive.
>>17081908Notice how your brown insect mental illness is forcing you to keep replying even though everything you shit out is ignored. :^)
>>17081910NTA but what is wrong with you? Kek
>>17081958I can recognize barely sentient retards at a glance. I'm not gonna entertain his moronic mumbling.
>>17081958He's the moldovan schizo. His handlers must be away.
>>17081530>I always thought that high level math utilized complex ontologies and metaphysics but it was all a lego game.I thought that too before i studied it. Then i found out that the jewish Cantor killed real math and made it into lego games. We need to get rid of set theorie and includ metaphysics.
>>17081570>>17081601What REALLY it outside, independent of our observation.
>>17081631trvke
>>17081539Its actually worse than this "lean verification" doesnt mean really anything. The problem of translating and informal statement into a formal statement in lean is outside the uncomputable hierarchy. And lets assume the AI gets the translation right into lean; we are still unsure if the natural language proof even matches the lean proof. It could be the same statement but the proven two different ways.
>>17081963>mumbling>t. the barely sentient retard who think written words can be "mumbled"
>>17082338This, lean verified doesn't mean anything. What if it's syntactically correct but semantically rubbish?
>>17082376>still here fantasizing about raping others onlineHaven't kys yet? How's that non-physical computation coming along retard?
>>17081963It's easiest to recognize what's familiar to you.
>>17081530Science in general is autistic ramblings
>>17083682Science: stuff humans agree on
>>17081530> I always thought that high level math utilized complex ontologies and metaphysics but it was all a lego game.Keep in mind that the reason we tend to associate high level math with ontology and metaphysics is because humans use stories, songs, art, language and metaphors as intellectual "scaffolding" to understand reality and convey that understanding to others.It has been established for thousands of years that math can effectively be "brute force" hence "Proof by Exhaustion". The problem is eventually the amount of information or combinations of information that need to be created/ maintained to achieve a solution will be too much for a human or group of humans to formulate. A.I. does not have this issue, thus it is able to just brute force it's way through problems without needing say a mental "crutch" like intellectual scaffolding to solve problems.
God yeah it’s boring
>>17084241No it's because of plato and pythagoras.
