It is a beautiful irony that you anti-choice fools always end up being the strongest argument in favor of abortion whenever you open your mouth to try to ague against it. If only your mother had the opportunity and foresight.

There's quite a lot of nuance here, I guess, which isn't unexpected. It's quite a useful anecdote. At the very least, we can't just wave it away like it's not useful. It may generate sub-standard paintings or completely miss the point of art, but if it makes your proofs better, it seems insane to not have it help.

The criticism against string theory ... to wit, why it has been debunked ... it that is by definition self-debunking. Since you aren't smart enough to figure out that you argued in favor of my point in your attempt to argue against it I'm not about to waste my time reading the rest of your attempt to waste everyone's time.

You seriously have no idea what you are talking about. I can't tell if you don't understand set theory or don't know the components of an AI Stack, but I do know that you lack a basic education on the subject and should learn to STFU until you get one.

If I were, perhaps it's because I'm not seeing any of the real stuff here.

Well, wait, I don't think that actually disproves the claim. I'm not saying it's not impressive, I just don't think it's as novel as you say.

When I ask an LLM to write me code that does something 'novel', it usually does quite a good job. I'm just using the freely available models, but they quite competently write code that is not truly derivative of any other code. If I give them some code of my own that has a bug in it, they'll find the bug and patch it, and that bug is, for all intents and purposes, unique.

You're still seeing a bunch of old patterns rehashed--I presume that other proofs introduce infinity families, and they can iterate through inside a clear logical structure to test whether or not something works. Again, this is impressive work, but I'm not personally convinced that this is 'novel' in terms of the broader corpus of mathematical knowledge. It didn't invent a new field of mathematics to solve your problem.

Even if you didn't prompt it, take a look sometimes at the contemplations of the models, if that's available to you. Before the model even arrives in your hands, it's got stacks of prompts giving it meta instructions, and it then generates prompts for itself to check your work. I think it would be interesting if you ran your experiment again on a new account that's fresh and see if you can watch the chain of reasoning. You might be right, it MAY be doing something TRULY novel, but as I've said, I've got my doubts.

Obviously, you're a mathematician and I'm not; I can't tell you that you're wrong about it if you insist that it is doing something new.

Well, let's test your logic. Saying hearts can't do math is the same thing as saying people can't do math, because a heart is a subset of a person. Or how about this one ... saying that the Amygdala can't do math is the same thing as brains can't do math because the Amygdala is a subset of the brain. How about claiming that saying databases can't serve web pages is the same as saying a webserver can't serve web pages because databases are a subset of a web stack. Herp Derp.

It seems like you would have to take a special course to learn how to be as misinformed as you are. How do you do it? It is truly impressive in an inverse corollary way.

Let me guess ... you don't know how to read?

In order to believe your ridiculous claim you pretty much have to go out of your way in search of misinformation at this point. Leaving aside the fact that you don't know the difference between an LLM and a frontier AI model, you also have to know nothing about actual documented proof, time and again, that they have arrived at completely non-novel innovative solutions to real world challenges with zero human intervention.

Wow. You are seriously jealous of her. She was never going to pay you any attention. Just get over it.

Are you trying to be obtuse or are you really as clueless as your comment indicates? Do you really think you can build strawmen to attack Sabine and none of her subscribers will be smart enough to see it?

No. She isn't wrong about the fact that most science "breakthroughs" don't pass the smell test these days. She doesn't get everything correct (nobody does and she would be the first to tell you she isn't always right), but she does a good job of playing devil's advocate in a world full of clueless pom pom wielding science cheerleaders who have no idea what they are talking about. A lot of sexist white men don't like the fact that she is much smarter than they are, and a lot of others don't like the fact that she calls them out on their bullshit. She rightly points out that science these days is about getting funding, and if some science happens to occur along the way then that is fine with them too.

I can't tell if you aren't smart enough to understand Sabine and Weinstein, simply don't understand the information available, or have been watching idiots like Sean Carrol, but you are completely off base. String Theory is what has been debunked, and it is a well known fact that scientists have not been doing very much real science for decades. String theory is just maths masturbation and it has set back physics by decades. If you don't believe me ask Roger Penrose. Most of the "scientific breakthroughs" that get reported are total bullshit, and Sabine is an excellent source for understanding why that is often the case.

Go remove the battery cable to do some electrical work on your car and then let us now how that works out for you.