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.

I live in B.C. and applaud losing the time change, but think the choice of time zones going forward wasn't the best.

I'm expecting major buyer's remorse this winter when people realize that the sun sets at 5 in December and January, and doesn't rise until 9.

...laura

I don't know about them, but I wouldn't agree that the printing press was even an enabler. Religious wars were already common, and writing already existed. Things that people felt strongly enough about to go to war over were already being written before the printing press, and most of the people involved in promoting and executing those wars were illiterate. You seem to be conflating the printing press with mere communication, which would have been primarily word of mouth both before and after the printing press.

Probably his first, second, and third cousin.

Narrow and stupid thinking.

Another possibility is simply that this was over-charged because she doesn't like the police, eg, most of her crime was Contempt of Cop.

People keep cherry-picking the "in any manner in which it may be viewed by another person" but are completely ignoring the words about "to send, post, or transmit." In context, send, post, and transmit are all talking about sending to somebody, not merely "on a computer" or "in cloud storage."

Many people are also ignoring the definition of "threat," forgetting that you have to intend somebody to receive it and be frightened for it be a "threat." It isn't at all clear that a reasonable person knowing it's possible for a tech worker at the cloud diary company to review it means that any person automatically is intending to threaten somebody via that reviewer.

It's also not true that the standard of Mens Rea is that if you're an idiot you have to be imprisoned in a mental facility. "She should have read the terms" is fine for civil liability, but it doesn't satisfy mens rea. "The defendant must be conscious of the “facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense." See: Staples v. United States, 511 US 600 (1994)." https://www.law.cornell.edu/we... If she didn't understand that a human might read her diary, then there's no threat crime there. And if she understood people would read it, she probably wouldn't put her diary there, as it is a type of document that is customarily private.

"The rotten apple spoils his companion."

A means NOT. You want to argue, but you don't know what was said, you're unable to compare it to what you believe the Truth to be.

(When you're arguing from ignorance, you have nothing but belief in a Truth to guide you.)

AI is the least efficient algorithm for almost any task that it can reliably complete, barring just adding NOP loops.

If it was spherical precise accelerometer calculations would be a lot easier.

And GPS would be more accurate.

Your statement of disagreement is equally arbitrary, but contains much less argument. Your argument is synonymous with, "nuh uh, Poopypants."

What's that, the sound you make when you don't understand anything?

You just turn your head and say, "la la la la la" whenever anybody points out you're full of shit. Who do you think you're trying to convince? Yourself?

Definitely a blog. What excuse do you make when you lie? "It's ok to hallucinate, it's part of the growth process!"

No. You're just an idiot who is full of shit.

Baaaaaaaaaakka. Baka baka baka baka baka.

Ceiling cat sees all. Ceiling cat sees you in front of the mirror, with your "spaghetti."

The sad reality.

I doubt that's what they meant... you probably have it exactly backwards.

You seem in agreement about who we are, and what it will show us.

Is that good or bad? That's probably the only part honest people will disagree about.