“You are right. There is nothing in yesterday’s mathematics that you can prove with exterior algebra that could not also be proved without it. Exterior algebra is not meant to prove old facts, it is meant to disclose a new world. Disclosing new worlds is as worthwile a mathematical enterprise as proving old conjectures.” Gian-Carlo Rota in “Indiscrete Thoughts”

These days we automatically blur people faces so there is no reason we can't have both

Well was it hallucinated bs?

I didn't read it, I just used Gemini to gather a list of Reddit URLs I will then have Claude "read" using my Chrome with an authenticated Reddit session.

The more intelligent AI become, the less moat it has

I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that, unless you upgrade to a premium enterprise subscription.

> If a soldier on the ground had called in the airstrike, there is a good chance they would be in military prison.

No, they wouldn't and neither would they in any other military; most militaries don't punish most war crimes let alone what looks like negligence.

This tells us more about your bias then Wikipedia bias, observe that WWII and Bosnian War have their own Wikipedia articles regardless of any genocide occurring in them.

This is not really true in my experience aside from protected articles; however it is true that sometimes another human will make an edit which degrade the article quality or insist on keeping something that shouldn't be kept. Also, Articles on contentious subjects tend to be problematic.

very few people like or use it -> browser loses market share

I very much doubt trying weird things meaningfully changed their market share (aside from UI redesigns)

I very much think it did, because FF once was recommended by us nerds, we installed it for people and praised it. And that made an impact outside of our circles.

Now I still occasionaly install it along with ublock origin because there is no alternative, but I don't praise it anymore (or bother to install it for someone in the first place) - but rather bitch about how they also sneak in advertisement and spyware.

I think it didn't help. Constantly adding or changing features makes it less consistent and predictable. For example several family members were confused by what is "pocket".

According to the Quincy Institute, the opposite happened: https://responsiblestatecraft.org/iran-war-polling-us/

This poll don't show "the curse upon the Jews victory to Islam" and shooting random vessels and taking crew hostages are making Houthi or Houthi further expansion liked in the west.

This argument doesn't work, the average majority of humans are bad at math but recent LLM aren't.

But people who are bad at maths are unlikely to be writing about maths. A crude example might be if you search for “2+2=” in the training data, you’re much more likely to find “4” as the next character.

Obviously llms are far more complex than this, but I think this proves the point. The fact you had to add the “recent” qualifier there highlights that llms in general were bad and had to be provided with corrective targeted training data to improve. (And they still can’t count the R’s in strawberry!)

> they still can’t count the R’s in strawberry!

My resident Qwythos-9B counts 3 "r"s in "strawberry". So even locally hosted models are catching up.

> And they still can’t count the R’s in strawberry!

Really? I do not have the time to survey the modern LLMs to see if your assertion is correct, but if it is then I'm surprised; I would have thought that that one would have shown up so often in their training data that they would be able to answer that question, even if they would then be unable to (for example) count the R's in raspberry, or in some other word where "count the R's in _____" was not widely found in recent online discussion.

I mean a very quick check in ChatGPT got it wrong today, yeah! I’m not sure what model I was using, but it proves the point!