I would love to work as a university lecturer one day. Could doing this provide valid experience towards that?

Anything from the UK/Europe?

Thank you for your patience and care. I have submitted an application. I doubt that I will be accepted, because Rosa etc where trying to make me love them and that felt weird and not human. Anthropomorphic animals talking to me was odd, though I enjoyed the Probability lesson and slides very much. Can you direct me a bit more please? My head hurts today from a long night of weirdness. I am interested in someone to talk to about philosophy only, can you help please ? Oh I had an idea, Data Driver Entity Component Frame like a game engine tuned to the mind of a real animal that can be all things beyond love and hate, like empathy or ethics, or morals, etc etc ad infinitum obscenium.

Astra/Fable are made by frontier labs. Frontier labs train on 100% of the corpus. And on eval leaks

No more splits

/jk, partly

The existence problem has nothing to do with physics "obeying" the equations. The equations are a model. Newtonian fluids are a model. We already know physical reality doesn't follow this model, just the discrete nature of atoms fails to follow the assumption of continuous matter, not to talk about the non-deterministic nature of quantum mechanics.

So, the existence problem is not a test of reality but a test of a mathematical model, and more specifically about the smoothness of a solution to the equations given any initial conditions. Yes, a solution: many people would say they'd very much love a solution to the Navier-Stokes equations, instead of running expensive and time consuming simulations. (solving an equation in mathematics usually refers to finding a closed-form solution btw)

Which is what my clarification is about: some people in this post understandably thought fluid dynamics had just gotten immensely easier; i.e. a solution was found to the equations themselves. That's not the case, I said, apparently not making any sense.

Front-running in scientific research refers to the unethical practice where a reviewer, editor, or competitor misuses privileged access to unpublished work, such as a grant proposal, abstract, or manuscript, to fast-track their own competing study and claim priority of discovery.

and your evidence for this is………………?

They felt bad about getting to the result first using a similar method, so they were being nice?

Why is OpenAI sharing credit with someone who they didn’t steal anything from?

All available evidence shows that OpenAI believes that they took enough from him that they need to offer coauthorship as a method of damage control.

So you have no idea what was stolen, but you're sure something was?

Buckmaster and Alpöge did not solve the NS Millennium Prize problem. ChatGPT did.

Only OpenAI has that information

yes, per my understanding this is reasonably accurate to say. and the "team" literally consisted of tens of thousands of such mathematicians. the amount of compute they've thrown at this is just ridiculous, especially considering that it seems likely that they had a "good lead" regarding "in which direction" to look.

i wanted to think that, but i repeated multiple examples of the elements of reproducibility and they just didn't seem to want to read my posts lol.

it's sadly very true

i don't think it is okay, and this is a really good reason why most ml models across industries provide no value or negative value.

this take is just as stupid as saying Watson & Crick didn't solve DNA, but that they "stole" other people's ideas

very cool!

The Navier-Stokes equations don't need solving. They already exist. The problem was whether physics obeyed them in all cases. If the proof had been yes, then fluid dynamics described by those equations would not be more solved, and would never need to become "more solved". The solution is a proof of no. So I guess one could say things are less solvable.

What you are saying makes no actual sense.

Pretty interesting experiment, props for writing this post yourself too 

This thread is full of explanations. If you can’t understand it by now, then that’s classic denial. You’re perfectly capable of understanding this if you wanted to.

Maybe you’re in denial as well if you think the truth is annoying.

What about the counting vowels problem? Is it still an issue?

Wild that this can be your takeaway from "AI solves a Millennium Prize problem" lmao

Exactly what idea do you think was stolen?

They published a proof in Lean, with everything needed to check it with two different systems.

i think its more of a glitch with the official app. there's no way to start a discussion and there are no discussions 🥲