What does that mean?

Not OP, but it’s not incompatible that dark-energy expansion (and ultimate big rip event) in a child universe correlates to the same process as black hole evaporation (and final event) for the originating black hole, if the “black hole universe” theory holds and they remain geometrically connected.

I’ll have to take your word for it, my general relativity isn’t that up to date… thanks for giving me context though!

The books exist and are possible to understand. They teach maths at most universities. You should try it, learning is fun.

please have a look at my profile before making silly comments. :)

I don't see how your profile possibly could make your point valid.

OK.

i wanted to try that, but aren't they like super full of poisons to kill bugs?

The logical next step is to eat the tree.

And then an airplane: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Lotito

"He was awarded a plaque, made of brass, by the publishers to commemorate his abilities. He ate his award".

Pretty, and a lot of fun to tweak around the parameters.

Our AI system don't just do things. They do it because someone asks. A lot of the boom in AI maths results are solving human formulated problems mostly for PR benefit. Once the novelty passes, would Anthropic or OpenAI keep spending? And without mathematicians to ask the right questions and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?

> And without mathematicians to ask the right questions

Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting?

> and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?

Here, I think I agree. At some level, there has to be a human in the process that must understand / interpret the results.

I gotta say, however, that I'm not certain about my agreement. I'm worried that I'm missing something where the human can be excised from the process entirely.

> Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting?

But why would they ask the right questions without prompting? The LLMs have no intrinsic goal to research math problems, it would just be very costly to run queries without a reason to run them... arguably a human in that loop would be a mathematician, but then we do need them after all.

> But why would they ask the right questions without prompting?

What if the models are good enough (maybe even now?) so that all you have to say is "come up with a list of interesting problems overlooked by humans in <insert math discipline>. Then work on those proofs."

I don't think that's so far fetched. Especially given the news today about NS.

I think we know enough about reinforcement learning to tell that it won’t be able to entirely replace human mathematicians. All of the techniques used by these AI firms are well-studied.

First of all, because mathematicians themselves are now asking the right questions to the public models to solve problems.

I am not arguing that mathematicians would never use AI systems, they do. I am arguing that if we stop having mathematicians we would stop solving deep mathematical problems as there would be no one to ask the right questions.

They’re pretty much dominating new electric cars in a lot of places now

You shouldn't drive blindfolded, but have you given any thought to where your eyes should be pointed while driving?

I agree with the point, i hate the touch screens, and i think you should be able to control almost everything without taking your eyes off the road. The blindfold made me think of some david blaine stunt.

Just my local regular non hallucinogenic toads makes dogs drewl like crazy if they try to catch on (or more commonly find a toad chip road kill on the gravel roads)

hmmm; I really don’t feel like I need weed or shrooms from time to time. I’m ok the way I am.