If this were my first exposure, the overly florid, 'artsy' presentation would have sent me packing before the end of the first section, thinking "Oh, great, now I'm going to have to unpack his prose before I can even follow the discussion".
Albert Einstein, on why he still went in to work at Princeton.
Now everyone is writing AI papers which all look identical. Sure academia has changed.
A Contradiction in the U.S. Constitution https://jeffreykegler.github.io/personal/morgenstern.html
Has there ever been any lower hanging fruit than the fact 95% of our universe is unexplained, and the tiny bit that is is described by two mutually incompatible theories?
What Einstein had to study before superseding Newton could probably be put into a 10-20K page book. What a scientist has to study before superseding quantum is probably closer to a 50-100K page book.
Quantum mechanics was more revolutionary than general relativity, but came almost immediately after and was simpler (after the conceptual leap) to study, which rather undermines the low-hanging fruit excuse.
Imagine today we make the perfect modeling machine for reality.
Now imagine that machine has to model not only reality yesterday, but today, now that we have the machine.
Additionally, it will have to model the fact that humans are going to change their behavior based on the fact that this machine is modeling reality...
aka, all of these problems below from seemingly different domains are actually isomorphic (aka the same problem in different shapes)
If it's inscrutable to you how do you know it's important enough for every AI/ML researcher to understand?
Lucas critique - there are limits to formal understanding, because by observing, and modeling something, you end up changing it - especially in a system made up of sentient agents.
See the parallels to heisenberg?
There are limits? The best way to run afoul of them are to not acknowledge they exist!
*edit: iPhone autocorrect
Hmm, er, ah, ... That's an odd way to put it.
Without this rule we might worry that perhaps there can be other numbers between five and six, or that if we all count up from one some of us might never reach a hundred because we inadvertently divert and get to six million early. These concerns seem intuitively nonsensical, but Peano doesn't want to rely on intuition, he wants to use logic.
"if and only if" is symmetric, but English isn't, really.
Do you write the Fibonacci function as "n * (n-1) = fib(n)"?
It makes lots of sense to put "m=n" first. It's giving the definition of equality. "[term] is [definition]".