Buffalox

It reeks of dishonesty. Very clearly they used AI, just not VERY SPECIFICALLY for the thing they were accused of firing a person over?

Weird AI disclosure:

store.steampowered.com/…/Rideshare_Stimulator/

AI Generated Content Disclosure:
The main Campaign story, characters, and dialogue are written by a team of human writers.

Why would you put in things that specifically are not AI in an AI disclosure?
Is that normal?

We promise to not use your data for AI if you press this button.

Terms of use.
We reserve the right to use data you enter to <long description of obvious necessary uses for the platform to work> and to help the platform. (Meaning we take ownership of the data)

We will only use your data after it has been submitted, at which point it is now OUR data SUCKEERR. 🤣 🤡

There is no such thing as enough data, probably more that users are catching on and complaining.

The fact that users have been automatically opted in to this AI training for years is causing a lot of anger.

But it’s mostly a placebo button:

opting out will not prevent your data being used if you chat on someone else’s stream

You can say no, except not really.

😋 🤣

The perfect solution.

LOL that’s just, I don’t know, hilarious? 🤪

Yes this is crazy, Apple is usually 100% on top of ensuring enough supplies.
I think this is more telling about how crazy the situation is than many other things I’ve read.

This sounds like something you outright made up.

Classical unsolved math problems have rewards.
Mathematics absolutely have peer review:

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28029799/

Neither paper has been peer-reviewed

But that’s not really the point, the point is that yes maybe AI can solve long standing mathematical problems, but they need to be confirmed by REAL mathematicians.
Because AI has been shown to hallucinate and lie when presented with problems they can’t solve.

There are many claims about AI solving hard mathematical problems, but very few that are confirmed. These stories seem to at least to some degree to act as advertising for AI services.

Yes, scientific articles are expensive.

Doesn’t have to be scientific articles, it can easily be a normal article that state that scientists have confirmed the findings independently.
This is a very common thing for normal media to describe. The second article you linked would most probably have included that if such confirmation existed.

I linked to evidence that mathematicians are using LLMs to find proofs

No you didn’t, the article described a researcher testing the capabilities of AI, nothing in the article was really about math, it was all about the AI, and the whole story reeks of sensationalism.

There is no evidence stated in the first article, and it’s paywalled.
The second article doesn’t show independent confirmation that the alleged proofs are real. Which was exactly what the original criticism was about.
Yes we all know the claims, and you have done nothing but parroting those claims without evidence.

Which is way more possible to link to. But you chose not to?

This is not about the mathematical evidence, but the lack of evidence that AI has made mathematical breakthroughs.
The point here is there is rarely any evidence for the claims about AI amazing accomplishments.
The burden of proof is on the one with the claim that AI has made these accomplishments, not on the one being sceptic about it.

This is not about the mathematical evidence, but the lack of evidence that AI has made mathematical breakthroughs.

You don’t really need sources, we all know AI tends to hallucinate when presented with a problem they can’t solve.
So far I’ve only read about 1 example of a problem that an AI may have solved. All the rest are without details and are not confirmed in any way.

Remember AI companies are huge on propaganda for their technology, but not so big on admitting the shortcomings.

Edit:
Changed the use of the word evidence to sources, because apparently people misunderstood it.

There is already no need for mathematicians, I can perfectly well make any square root on my calculator. 🤣

Absolutely this. You can also add supercomputers.
AI may help the field move further, but real mathematicians are still needed to evaluate the meaning of such findings.

Absolutely no way.
Even if AI can make mathematical breakthroughs as in evidence of hard to solve problems. We still need mathematicians to clear it as valid.

I imagine AI might actually sharpen the understanding among real mathematicians.
AI didn’t make Chess or Go obsolete either.

So instead of it being crazy in itself that Linux use should triple within a few months, you suggest that a tiny fragment of the Linux ecosphere alone is responsible?
I think the more likely explanation here is that the collection of data or use of the data behind the stat is flawed.