People would believe in the hardware if they put it out, because IBM is not really known for exaggerating specs. But they don't seem to be able to.

I don't want even a new Samsung phone with its crappy nonstandard apps, let alone an old one which also has old Android.

Mega corporation advocates for regulatory capture, this is my surprised face

Sure, but putting storage online is cheaper both initially and ongoing than putting a bunch of GPGPU online, and in both power consumption and dollars. It can take up just as much space but use an order of magnitude less electricity, therefore be quieter, and have no one care

It might actually turn out good for IBM if the bubble pops sooner than later. Then they get to look smart for not participating when all the AI stocks (and the stocks of any other company that bet big) slump.

IBM has been more of a services company than a hardware company for decades, it's true. And yet, they are still a hardware company despite that, and their hardware is supposed to back up their services.

In fact if any politician caused the Internet boom it was Al Gore

"the race to AGI is of the same National Security importance as the race to be first for the Atomic Bomb.

Whomever reaches that goal first ( assuming it is reachable at all ) will enjoy an enormous advantage
over everyone else."

Or they just get burned for fuel first

Same for modern Christianity, despite women doing most of the reading of the religious works in the household at the beginning.

Faltered is right. Isn't IBM a hardware company among other things? Why didn't they have a hardware product to offer customers who wanted to experiment with throwing away money?

It's so sad that your comment got a 5 despite your conclusion, which wasn't supported by the body.

They are literally advocating for democracy, which prompted you to cry communism.

I don't care about the percentage basis, it doesn't detract from the point. What matters is where the bulk of the dollars are going, and they are going to a small number of people who have the most money. The fact that capital accrues capital is a bug, not a feature.

Or let's put this another way. Show of hands - how many of you "spicy autocorrect" / "stochastic parrot" people had "AI will start mass-solving Erdos problems" on your forecast list a couple years back? Huh, none of you? Fascinating!

Take some time to reassess your priors. And while you do so, understand that, yes, they are doing logic / reasoning.

They weren't discovered by an LLM. They were known conjectures that were proven by an automated solving language that was linked to an LLM.

I'll take "Things That Didn't Happen For $200", Alex.

Only a handful of meaningful proofs have ever been done by automated formal theorem solvers (the Four Colour Theorem being the most noteworthy example - but its proof is so long that humans can't verify it). By contrast, AI tools have been solving Erdos problems en masse. The majority of them just bog-standard commercial models. In case you need help, the only ones on that list that were hybrid (AI / non-AI) in the actual solving phase are:

1) AlphaProof / DeepMind Prover Agent / AlphaProof Nexus
2) Aristotle (Harmonic)
3) Seed Prover / Seed Prover 1.5 (ByteDance)
4) AxiomProver (Axiom Math)

In each of the above, LLMs come up with the lemmas / strategies but then use Monte Carlo search ("brute force") or likewise to investigate what they came up with. These are a minority. In the "AI Standalone" category, these "hybrid" tools made up only ~20% of attempts and successful proofs. Hybrid tools actually made more of a contribution in the "AI Alongside Literature" (related literature found afterward) and even more of the "AI Building On Literature" (related literature known beforehand) categories, which is the opposite of what people like you expect.

And even with the hybrid tools, it's still the AI doing the heavy lifting when it comes to strategy. Non-AI theorem solvers, again, don't have a spectacular record for churning out novel proofs to unsolved problems. Tools like Lean are more about mathematical rigour - a passive environment that requires a driver (a human or AI) to feed it actual strategies, lemmas, and proof steps. And no, you cannot brute force "strategy" in the vast majority of cases, which is, again, why automated theorem solvers don't have much of a track record with unsolved mathematical problems.

Let's take a random example: the disproof of the unit distance conjecture. It was solved purely by a general purpose commercial GPT model, not custom-trained to mathematics, with no external tools. Read what the various mathematicians reviewing / commenting on it have to say (sections #3 and onward). Seriously, don't skip reading them, actually read them. This was one of Erdos's favourite problems. He mentioned it commonly in his lectures. Essentially every mathematician working in complex geometry has thought about this problem. The approach that the model came up with was highly novel approach, based on CM-fields and class field towers.

I know you don't want to accept this reality, but it is the reality, so you better improve your ability to accept it,. The field of mathematics is already doing so.

Dang, link didn't post.