I spent four years in the navy as a supply clerk dealing with paper work and petty bureaucrats. I learned an outrageous number of ways to not cooperate while seeming to cooperate.

I appreciate digging up the response. I have long since lost the patience to deal with bureaucrats.

There is something decidedly amiss when the monopolist defines its own limits.

One vote every 2 or 4 years, for which insider controls the monopoly, is a pathetic outsider limitation on government.

Thanks, that is very interesting. But something smells fishy.

1. 1 false positive from "over 641,533 faces" seems too good to be true. Very few systems of any kind are that good, and facial recognition? I don't buy it. And that's an oddly specific number to be "over". It does not pass the smell test.

2. "Shows no bias" is similarly too good to be true and doesn't pass the smell test. Didn't Apple have some problem in the last year or two with trying to spiff up faces, where black skin didn't work as well? "No bias" is not credible.

3. "Zero unlawful arrests" is weasel words. Just because an arrest has conformed to various legal standards, such as having a warrant, being cautioned, not beaten up, etc, does not make it a proper arrest. Lots of people are acquitted at trial after having been lawfully arrested.

4. The rate has not changed. Well, yes, it must have, if this is the false positive rate, since it presumably once upon a time had 0 false positives and now has 1, and the denominator has been increasing all this time unless the first 641,533 faces were all recognized in the first day.

5. The only credible answer. There may well be no national false positive rate.

But it's an interesting response. Thanks.

I don't know what she's been doing. But from the fact that it took 40 years to track her down, and that only because a non-cop found her, I'd say the evidence is strong I know what she *hasn't* been doing -- terrorism, or training terrorists.

Seriously, if she's been living for 40 years training terrorists who haven't done anything to draw attention to themselves or her, she's either been running a false flag terrorist school with the government's connivance, or she hasn't been running a terrorism school.

If society wants to punish her for what she did 40 years ago, fine. But stop pretending the police took a dangerous terrorist off the streets.

If she's been in hiding for 40 years, she's not exactly violent any more. Her capture has nothing to do with public safety at this point, more for revenge and closing the record with some HooRah We Got Her theatrics.

Might DOES make right; that's how government works. One definition is a monopoly on "legal" violence within their territory, although they aren't very good at it, considering how many riots there were in 2020 and the two autonomous zones where city governments surrendered their monopoly for a spell.

If you want to make the case that government should use facial recognition, you'll need some real data.

* One success ... how many false positives -- how many people were wrongly tagged? How many false negatives -- how many times was this woman seen but not tagged? Was she a hermit and this was her first public appearance in 40 years?

* How recent were the pictures of her which were the basis of her being tagged? Do you really want us to believe the only success story you have is based on artificially aging her photograph by 40 years?

I'm not sure the Pope's opinion matters, but it is ironic that evidence suggests that sections were written via AI: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/GbWwesBnetyiomxEH/many-portions-of-magnifica-humanitas-appear-to-be-ai-written.

As I've pointed out before, I have an actual PhD in number theory. I've explicitly discussed here specific results which are due to me and linked even to one of my papers before. You should be able to think that maybe, just maybe, people who are subject matter experts might know what they are talking about, and maybe know something you don't. But for some reason that possibility seems to be one you immediately and completely discount.

The proof structure here is somewhat simple, enough that any algebraic number theorist can follow most of the argument. But that isn't because it is a counterexample. There are occasions where a counterexample requires an extremely difficult, delicate, construction and there are times where a proof of the claim in question is surprisingly straightforward. This is the sort of mistake that one makes if one a) Doesn't know as much about number theory as one thinks one does and b) have a lot of motivated reasoning going on to discount the significance of the result.

I'm a mathematician, so there's a chance that I maybe, just maybe know what I'm talking about it here. You appear to be using an extremely narrow definition of "leverage" and then insisting anyone who doesn't use your definition is wrong. But whether one insists on an overly narrow definition of leverage or not, the central point remains: when people make mathematical discoveries, they are building on and using existing ideas. Whether you object to the word "leverage" there isn't relevant to that central point.

This is a *famous* unsolved math problem. It was already highly unlikely that there was a solution hiding in the literature for Problem 1196. The Unit Distance Problem is so much more famous, with so much more work, it is genuinely hard to express how fantastically unlikely it was for this solution to be somehow hidden in the literature.

This seems to be somewhat incorrect. They also released the rewritten "cleaned" chain of thought here https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/1625eff6-5ac1-40d8-b1db-5d5cf925de8b/unit-distance-cot.pdf(pdf). That isn't everything, and has been cleaned in some respects, but shows a massive number of dead-ends, unnecessary complications, and everything else you expect to see in a working mathematician's initial attempt at a proof. As far as I can tell, the primary thing they've done here is just compile the text LaTeX into a PDF form but given that this is a proprietary model output it wouldn't surprise me if it also had some things they don't want to leak scrubbed from it.

Lemma 2.2 struck me as a type of bound on an extension with complex multiplication that I had not seen before and seemed clever. I was also struck by even as the Lemma itself was clever, that the proof of that Lemma was pretty straightforward. The overall approach is in many respects pretty similar to existing work and feels in some respects in the same spirit as Erdos's own lower bound construction, but having a tower of fields which seemed clever to me, but the writeup notes three prior papers where a tower was used to produce a combinatorial object of some type. That said, I still find this choice of the class field tower to be clever and intricate in this context.

I am mostly in agreement. Disagreement here:

We're not at that point yet. Right now, we're not seeing it solve the genuinely hardest problems, like say the Riemann Hypothesis, or P ?= NP. What is true is that these systems are at least as good as a beginning grad student in all subfields and are outputting results equivalent to a top-notch mathematician on some problems. But it is also true that these systems are improving rapidly. So while your statement is false right now, it looks likely your statement is going to be true within just a few short years.