there was an interesting retcon of that story in one of niven's later works, where it was pointed out that any spacefaring race would know instantly what killed him. it was just better PR to pretend that it was a huge mystery, and that their hull wasn't vulnerable to some stupidly obvious danger but rather to something no one could have foreseen.
not to take away from the author's appreciation of newly accessible formal proofs, but people have been talking about the savings in formalization effort for longer than they have been talking about the AI doing the actual proofs!
I once read a (possibly apocryphal) description of a swiss sign saying in english "please don't pick the flowers", in french "those who love nature leave the flowers alone", and in german "picking the flowers is forbidden"
reading that shopify supports users designing their own custom shopfronts really helped put the acquisition into context. makes a lot of sense to bet on tailwind for that.
addressing the category error rather than the specifics of whether js belongs in the backend - just because a language is theoretically general purpose, it doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job. in the case of language tooling in particular, the operations involved are fairly well understood, and they do not really play to the strengths of javascript (or indeed of any of the currently popular dynamic languages), because what you want is optimised performance rather than exploration of ambiguous business rules, or runtime adaptation to the shape of user data, or consuming untyped blobs from a remote API, or any of the range of other problems backend js is indeed decently useful for.
the projectnash link claims it's mathematically valid, the noahpinion link says that it's invalid and has a marvellous proof that the non-walled section is too small to contain.
Ah derp; that's what I get for moving too fast. Genuine thanks for calling me out on my bullshit. (and this is also why I prefer auditable citations instead of casual "my reading of twitter is...")
I retract the projectnash citation; I grabbed it from the Cool World's youtube description, thinking it was a blog version of the video. It was not. I suggest watching the video instead.
even apart from the plagiarism issue, what sort of slimy company thinks "oh, here's someone using our models to work on a problem, let's throw more compute at it and scoop them"?
Training on prompts I can understand - that's kinda baked into the premise, and they've been explicit about it.
Publication, though? Slimy is right.
But the interesting question to me is: once they had a solution, what should they have done with it? I see two choices: bury it, or contact the mathematicians whose prompts they were listening in on.
css actually is hard, but layout is hard in general. it's a surprisingly difficult and computationally expensive problem to do things that look instinctively easy to humans.
reply