But this oracle doesn't just say true / false. It also gives a proof. That makes it much less exciting (not to mention beneficial for your career) to find another one (or even worse, the same one).

The "proof" is merely an appeal (unreadable program) submitted to a different oracle (Lean).

What do u think lean is? That's like saying a program that works, is inscrutable because it appeals to the oracle of "code test cases" to prove itself correct.

You're either being intentionally obtuse, or unintentionally ignorant.

Have you tried to read the Lean proofs produced for any of the recent high-profile results? They're extremely long, terribly structured, and don't indicate which parts are restating known results from literature and which are unique to the proof at hand. That's what makes them inscrutable.

It's similar to Mochizuki claiming to have proved the ABC conjecture, with a proof depending on ideas developed over a large number of obscure papers, that required mathematicians to spend a lot of time before they felt they understood it well enough to point out flaws.

If AI solves all famous open problems and the non-famous ones, too, without advances in the readability of their output, there'll still be some work to do to digest and rearrange the proofs for human consumption. During that process, the mathematician may well get some new ideas...

>It's similar to Mochizuki claiming to have proved the ABC conjecture

Now I wonder if someone could port his proof to Lean

Tldr.

For all your bombast, do take a moment to note that no mathematician has actually said openai has not produced a correct solution. Should make you think.

Thanks for this clarification of your position. The brief answer is:

> If we didn't move the goalposts, then by definition we already knew exactly where we were headed at the beginning, and we very clearly did not.

The criticisms are directed toward people who did clearly act like they knew, not the ones who were honest that they did not know.

So you defined your own idiosyncratic version of "moving the goalposts" and used it to rebut his argument, with a condescending "you understand that's how science works, right?"--instead of being honest that it is you who are changing the definition, and not his failure to understand anything.

I don't see how that's any better.

He rebutted the argument about moving the goalposts by moving the goalposts. It’s better by dint of sheer bravado.

You got me - I've been rumbled.

Actually, I'm really an LLM and this whole thing was a clever bluff.

Not sure how to suggest edits to titles, but @dang: his first name is Terence, not Terrence.

How likely you mean. It's the same effort to win a game as to lose a game.

I think you're misreading the comment you're responding to. Its parent comment said that life can be a blessing or a curse depending on how you choose to look. They responded by asking whether the word "curse" is appropriate if it can be changed based only on perspective.

Indelible, probably -- though I admit that both trying to eat and trying to delete that passage failed. (I jest -- "impossible to forget," of course.)

Interesting! I meant "incredible", though. Fixed now.

Your account seems relatively new, so you might be unfamiliar with the rule to be charitable here. If you'd like to be snarky and lower the bar for discourse, Reddit is a much better place to do that (though ideally it would be kept out of public spaces altogether).

Huh, I would guess there's a different mechanism at work. In my experience, movies playing on TV during the holidays tend not to get people's deep, persistent, undivided attention.

I wouldn't be so quick to divide the world so neatly into victims and perpetrators. Every FAANG engineer I know, for example, could easily retire by mid-40s by keeping consumption in check. Instead, nearly every single one chose instead to "improve their lifestyles." Not blaming them, either, because it's cultural programming -- but until we all learn to slow down a bit and reflect, the madness isn't going to stop.

Even if you knew every FAANG in existence that would account for a very small fraction of the population. It might be true for this class, but you can't expect everyone to be a able to retire by 40.

Even if everybody could, they wouldn't because they are immersed in a culture that celebrated consumerism at every instance. You can't just turn a switch and now you live self-sustainably.

My assumption here is that FAANG employees are not fundamentally different from the rest of the populace along that particular dimension (desire to inflate lifestyle). I chose them in particular to demonstrate that even when we have the choice, we can easily opt not to take it. Of course many do not have that choice.

And yes, I agree with your second paragraph. "The culture" celebrates it — but that culture is not violently enforced top-down by a handful of people twirling mustaches. We all participate in our own little ways — and the more of us that step off the treadmill, the less those messages find footing, in a virtuous cycle. Again, it's not about blame. But for those of us who have the capacity and desire to decondition ourselves, it's very much worth doing. It can affect the feedback loop more powerfully than we think.

> I chose them in particular to demonstrate that even when we have the choice, we can easily opt not to take it.

I see now. But I still think it's a side effect of what society currently celebrates which is consumerism.

> but that culture is not violently enforced top-down by a handful of people twirling mustaches

That's assuming it's the only way to force a population into a specific behaviour, by force. It's actually the least effective method in my opinion. There is also the digital panopticon.

Blame and victim is just a way to give structure to the world. It's not essential. Not even in violence, in the Roman republic it was very well accepted to put women and children to the sword when pillaging a city.

And sure, all changes start in the private sphere, even if it's a more general movement in society. If people stop buying stuff, there is someone consciously or not choosing not to buy that specific thing.

I just think that it's the same with clothing. If you leave for the people to choose not to buy clothing made by slaving children that's just not going to happen if they cost a fraction of clothing made otherwise. It's also not a matter of prohibition because that goes against people's individual freedom to choose. You just have to give society enough time so that it gravitates towards willing to choose differently, meanwhile advocating for the change you want to see in your immediate community.

What are you going to do when you retire by 40 and all your friends (and s/o) are still working? I don’t really understand the appeal.

Perhaps "retire" is the wrong word. One can still work (whether for pay or not) and improve the lives of the people around them without staying on the consumption treadmill. Very few actually do. Again, this isn't meant as a judgement — it's just highlighting that we each have a role to play in slowing down this insane freight train.

This is completely the wrong approach. You can't dedicate your entire life to one specific task and expect when you retire to suddenly be able to "improve the lives of the people around (you) without staying in the consumption treadmill" because all you know is the consumption treadmill. Thinking otherwise is just wishful thinking.

If you see yourself improving the lives of people around you later in life, which is commendable and the right thing to do, you have to start now, while you are still in your prime years. If you leave it when you are older chances are you'll be just another John waiting in line for the next Black Friday.

You can't think of anything you'd want to do with your daytime hours other than work?

Have you tried doing anything other than work that isn't consuming something?

I have, from drawing to music, from writing novels to doing programming projects on my free time.

It's not very fun, you aren't good at most of it and it's very frustrating. It's also very rewarding being able to overcome limitations and building up skills. But it's first and foremost very demanding. You can't expect someone that just got retired to suddenly spark in creative energy, even if they intimately wanted to do everything.

That's still work, it's just self-directed and not for selling to the general market. Same as how exercising is work.

What isn't work then?

Watching Netflix I suppose. Sleeping (although I'm sure some get paid for that in the right circumstance) ... Even watching Netflix could be a slog if you're doing it for some purpose (e.g. to clue up on cultural references) and it's an exertion of effort.

Don't you agree that this limits a lot the perspective of what you do when you retire, if retiring means not working anymore?

Maybe we agree that it's all work, but there are types of work that even though they're frustrating, they are also rewarding in specific ways that is interesting for those that retire.

Retiring is just retiring from employment. I suppose I'm drawing a distinction between formal employment and all forms of work. Yardwork is a nice example enjoyed by retirees.

Personally if I do anything for 8+ hours a day 5 days a week it starts to feel like a job around 2 or 3 months in no matter how much I love it, and if I do much less than that I start to feel lacking in structure and progress.

I’ve gone through extended periods of unemployment (by choice, not in a stressful way) before, and it’s wonderful but by month 3 I’m always kinda over it.

Retirement for me will probably look pretty much the same as working except I won’t necessarily pick a job that pays well.

Whatever you find interesting. Imagine being able to just do something without the mental calculation of "is it worth spending a PTO day on this?"

I pretty much optimize for PTO when choosing jobs, so I really never have this dilemma. My current job offers 8 weeks PTO (but I make much less than I would at a FAANG). To me, that’s better than retirement.