gradient descent into madness

sometimes i am glad tumblr users have zero political power

my strongest claudes would kill you, traveler

you legally have to tell me if it's satire, or it's entrapment

must feel good as fuck to curse a prince for being rude to you while you were larping as an old woman for no reason

Soulslike boss fight that riffs on the Black Knight sketch from Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail where every time you hit a new phase you hack off a limb, and somehow it just keeps getting harder. Most guides recommend cheesing burst DPS to skip the hopping-on-one-leg phase because it's just plain unfair.

ime pure sociopaths get put out of doors pretty quickly, the people who float to the top are people with very active yet very mercenary emotional lives, thats the new meta

once in a while you see someone whos overcome with pity and horror-at-all-pain the moment their friend is getting shit, whos swamped with tics and trembles whenever they need to look weak, who relaxes into smooth /b/tard cruelism whenever someone inconvenient needs to go. and never hesitates and never gets self-conscious and never feels their opponent threw a nice punch. and look as long as you like these feelings are all completely authentic. every chord of human experience is there but here the instrument's in tune

blogger basically making the argument that the cultural revolution is what allowed china to later experience such meteoric economic growth. it's nice to see contrarian opinions like this. I've played enough victoria to be sympathetic to this idea that the destruction of the peasant is the ultimate good, but you know. none of this is horribly rigorous

It's insanely lucky that there were these two research areas, type theory for formal verification and reasoning AI models, each of which was of very limited usefulness to math research on its own, each happened to be reaching maturity at almost the exact same time. Math has such a high standard of rigor that can basically never just use an ai generated proof. And proof assistants like Lean are so incredibly arduous to work with that nobody wants to actually use them. But slap them together and you get a closed feedback loop where the model gets checked against an extremely rigorous formalism, and the model abstracts away enough that you don't have to learn homotopic type theory to use it. And you end up with something that is both easier and more rigorous than doing the proof fully by hand. And both of these went from deeply underpowered to pretty useable since 2023, just in time to be practical when paired together

How easy is it to know that there aren't any errors in the lean formalization? I know that lean guards against logic errors but that doesn't prevent errors in problem statements or in others' theorem statements? Not at all my field so I'm curious

Basically it just comes down to checking the theorem statement and the supporting definitions, which is pretty easy bc that's the part where Lean goes out of its way to make sure it looks the same as the mathematical statement. Its simple enough that as long as you ask the model to formalize the statement first and then follow the proof, the big models (ie, not aristotle) don't seem to make many errors. Might be different in something like geometry that requires a visual sense they're not good at.

It's insanely lucky that there were these two research areas, type theory for formal verification and reasoning AI models, each of which was of very limited usefulness to math research on its own, each happened to be reaching maturity at almost the exact same time. Math has such a high standard of rigor that can basically never just use an ai generated proof. And proof assistants like Lean are so incredibly arduous to work with that nobody wants to actually use them. But slap them together and you get a closed feedback loop where the model gets checked against an extremely rigorous formalism, and the model abstracts away enough that you don't have to learn homotopic type theory to use it. And you end up with something that is both easier and more rigorous than doing the proof fully by hand. And both of these went from deeply underpowered to pretty useable since 2023, just in time to be practical when paired together

It's insanely lucky that there were these two research areas, type theory for formal verification and reasoning AI models, each of which was of very limited usefulness to math research on its own, each happened to be reaching maturity at almost the exact same time. Math has such a high standard of rigor that can basically never just use an ai generated proof. And proof assistants like Lean are so incredibly arduous to work with that nobody wants to actually use them. But slap them together and you get a closed feedback loop where the model gets checked against an extremely rigorous formalism, and the model abstracts away enough that you don't have to learn homotopic type theory to use it. And you end up with something that is both easier and more rigorous than doing the proof fully by hand. And both of these went from deeply underpowered to pretty useable since 2023, just in time to be practical when paired together