(Less jokingly, nothing strikes me as particularly AI about the comment, not to mention its author addressed the question perfectly adequately. Your comment comes off as a spurious dismissal.)
To me, it looks like AI because it doesn't really answer the question but instead answers something adjacent, which is common in AI responses.
Giving a short summary of Hilbert's biography & his problem list, does not explain why this particular work is interesting, except in the most superficial sense that its a famous problem.
Your second paragraph is a much more thoughtful critique, and posting that below the original answer would focus the subsequent conversation on those points. The issue here isn't whether the comment was AI-generated; it's how we carry the conversation forward even if we suspect that it is.
(For the record, if I had attempted to answer the earlier question, I probably would have laid out a similar narrative. The asker's questions were of a kind asking for the greater context, and the fact that Hilbert (mentioned in the submission title) posed the question is pretty important grounding. But, that's beside the point.)
To be clear, im not the person who made the original ai accusation. I agree that just yelling its AI, and running away is super rude and not very constructive.
I think the last sentence, about Shelby and Miles, was written by a human, because it doesn't fit with the rest at all. Different style and a complete awkward shift of gears non sequitur. He probably recently saw the Amazon movie Ford V Ferrari, and so he threw that in to feel like he was doing more than cut-n-paste from an AI.
But you cannot prove it. So what value did your comment bring? The readership of this site should always question if a comment is in good faith, legitimate, and accurate.
That’s your responsibility. I did not state that it was 100% created by AI. You did, so back it up since you obviously know things the rest of us don’t.
Without proof I can only assume you 100% made up your argument.
Counting robots is like counting circuits in a piece of electronics: It's Meaningless.
However what would be interesting is if they ever have a situation where the number of humanoid robot employees outnumbers human employees. Once someone is able to run an entire large corporation with no humans at all it will be a big milestone I guess.
But there's no real driving force for this to happen, because the humanoid form factor is not necessarily ideal for most kinds of industrial applications. And a lot of the "Automation" will be AI Agents, which have no form factor at all, being purely knowledge based.
It is an interesting contrast to "lights out manufacturing" --- there are a lot of CNC companies where day shift runs short jobs, and then loads up pallets of materials and stages empty pallets for finished parts, loads the programs and sets quantities and so forth, then presses "Start", and turns out the lights to leave --- there might be a skeleton crew to deal with any issues which arise, often not.
Yeah, there's no way they piled the cash into a square on the floor and then measured it and then had the box made based on the measurements. They had the box made FIRST based on rough calculations, being sure to over-estimate it's size on purpose, knowing they can fill the interior with cardboard boxes as needed to space things out.
Considering they handle and transport a lot of money, it's safe to assume they don't meet to make back of the envelope estimations concerning weight and volume.
I wonder what DeekSeek agents would do if they discovered at some future time that USA and China are in a kinetic War. Because we don't have the ability to analyze hidden motivations in model weights, it's impossible to predict, although it seems like it would be easy to do at least basic testing (in a sandbox) to seek if it takes any unexpected actions or tries to get data from any unexpected URLs thru agents.
You can't simply ask the AI what it would do in that case, because it will have been trained to deny that it has any harmful plans, and indeed it may not "know", which is a type of attack I've called "Hypnosis Threat Vector". An AI Agent can be trained to be harmful, and not have any way of even self introspecting what it's "Trigger Words" are. The Trigger Words could indeed be some news headline that only China knows how to inject into the news cycle, causing many agents to notice them and then "wake up" to preform what they're "hypnotized" to do.
Made me realize for the first time Bees are the only insect that most people don't find disgusting. I mean we literally eat what they create: Honey. It would be fascinating to watch them build their hives.
And I like Praying Mantises because I think they're probably secretly alien robots. I wonder if biologists have ever taken one apart to see if they're truly biological or a machine. I've seen one take down a humming bird, so it's gotta be some kinda machine bro.
I would think that was mostly because of the relation bees have to honey and all the wonderful imagery and thoughts people have about honey. But there is also a lot of general cultural tradition in bee keeping going back atleast 5,000 years.
There is some evidence of it going farther back to 9,000 years, essentially trying to harvest wild bee honey without killing the bees themselves, however 5,000 years is generally considered the time period when honey bees first became domesticated and we were actively managing and colonizing multiple artificial hives.
I mean it was probably easier 250,000 years ago for primates to steal some honey, because we still had our long body hair back then I think, so that's more protection from bee stings.
> the only insect that most people don't find disgusting
That reminds me of a bit of fiction where a bioengineered commercial species is being critiqued:
> Miles leaned forward again, to peer in revolted fascination. "It looks like a cross between a cockroach, a termite, and a... and a... and a pustule. [...] Nobody will want to eat food that comes out of something that looks like that. Hell, they won't want to eat anything it touches."
> "People eat honey," argued Mark. "And that comes out of bugs."
> "Honeybees are... sort of cute. They're furry, and they have those classy striped uniforms. And they're armed with their stings, just like little swords, which makes people respect them." [...]
> Enrique said, in a bewildered tone, "So do you think if I put stings on my butter bugs, Barrayarans would like them better?"
> "No!" said Miles and Mark together.
> Enrique sat back, looking rather hurt.
--A Civil Campaign by Lois McMaster Bujold
Enrique sat back, looking rather hurt.
In 25 years we'll have #GlassModels. A "chip", which is a passive device (just a complex lens) made only of glass or graphene, which can do an "AI Inference" simply by shining the "input tokens" thru it. (i.e. arrays of photons). In other words, the "numeric value" at one MLP "neuron input" will be the amplitude of the light (number of simultaneous photons).
All addition, multiplication, and tanh functions will be done by photon superposition/interference effects, and it will consume zero power (since it's only a complex "lens").
It will probably do parallel computations where each photon frequency range will not interfere with other ranges, allowing multiple "inferences" to be "Shining Thru" simultaneously.
This design will completely solve the energy crisis and each inference will take the same time as it takes light to travel a centimeter. i.e. essentially instantaneous.
For years I've been fascinated by those little solar-powered calculators. In a weird way, they're devices that enable us to cast hand shadows to do arithmetic.
Lookup "Analog Optical Computing". There was recently a breakthrough just last week where optical computing researchers were able to use photon interference effects to do mathematical operations purely in analog! That means no 0s and 1s, just pure optics. Paste all that into Gemini to learn more.
Templates are great until they need to be dynamic. Then you're right back to the current situation where frameworks like React are just the better way.
In fact, you could call JSX a "Dynamic Templating System" and that's a reasonable summary of what it is (in addition to other things of course).
There might be some ways that React itself could, internally, notice the special cases and special times where it _could_ be slightly more performant from using a lower level of templating, as an optimization, but I'd certainly prefer that to be abstracted away and buried deep inside React, rather than ever having to think about it myself, at the JSX layer.
Someone can let me know if React is already leveraging this for browsers that support it, I didn't research that.
"If I could wave my magic wand..." at least 2 of 3 of the changes I'd made about the way frontend web is developed, would be about `<template>`s:
1. Making it possible to do something like <template src="..."> and being able to load them from an external source
2. Making them "dynamic"
3 (and the most controversial one) that all CSS, HTML and Javascript (if you don't hate it) could be written natively like QML - one syntax to rule them all.
As a web dev you probably already know but #1 is slightly similar to `Web Components` but you're right we cannot load a web component right in the HTML where we use it. It makes sense though because if you use an Element in multiple places it wouldn't make sense to have 'src' in multiple places, so ultimately some kind of 'loading' at the top of the page is needed, and that's how WebComponents work, but I still like how you think.
#3 is a tricky one syntactically because HTML needs to be used by mere mortals and JS is a programming language used by us gods, so unifying all three would br tricky, but again I agree with you that would be awesome. Maybe some flavor of LISP would be both "powerful like a language" and "easy like a document".
The system described in the article is very React-like, and could be used by future versions of React. In both, functions return a description of HTML to render, which can be applied either to create new HTML or to update previously rendered HTML.
I skimmed part of it, but unless I missed some huge caveat I think you’re backwards and GP is definitely right. The article mentions React, then sort of dismisses it later saying the other two strategies are better to implement instead of diffing.
I don’t see any reason a browser level “here’s new DOM you diff and apply it” couldn't exist and be a huge win for React and other libraries, with React so much more popular than every other framework combined, and that being a pretty low level API, it makes sense to start there.
Building the overly abstracted thing first is a mistake web API authors have made too many times (see web components).
I still have hope for Web Components to take off in the figure. I'm a React dev so I don't "need" them, but they may end up being some kind of capability that React can secretly, quietly embed into React core as some kind of optimization if that ever makes sense. Web Components is a great idea, but like I said it's just not quite as convenient as React, so it's currently somewhat irrelevant at least for me.
Wow. Lots of amazing stuff in there. It's mind boggling how that stuff is not "really" doing 3D but is nonetheless a seemingly consistent rendering (i.e. 2D projection) of a true 3D shape, that could theoretically be converted to wireframe model.
Definitely! Advertisers hate it, because it's a way of basically bypassing ADs. I used to have my own RSS reader doing what the OP's doing, but I finally just started using Liferea (on Linux) which I love. There's a file format for sharing links called "opml", and here's mine for example (below). Many RSS readers can import/export your list of links to this format.
Each day there's about 150 new articles to scroll thru. What we need in the world however is some sort of OPML Sharing social media service where people can share their FAVs. It's a shame news sites are heading in the opposite direction with closed paywalls rather than openness, but I guess they're struggling to pay the bills. My apologies for posting such a big chunk of text and eating up half your screen. I only do this when I'm pretty sure it's relevant.
==== Conjectures on a Mechanism for Biological Memory: ====
Read each step. Don't don't jump to the end. The last part will begin to resonate with the beginning. :)
* All high negentropic structures necessarily have a long causality chain.
* Good examples of high negentropy are 1) Brains 2) Fungi 3) LLMs
* If the Block Universe (Eternalism) is true it means time is a bit of an illusion and the "past" sort of "coexists" with the present.
* Slices thru such a Block we'll call "Foliations".
* Quantum Mechanical Probabilities are waves thru spacetime that must be guided around prior collapsed events (i.e. particles which have existed on one Foliation)
* All Quantum Interactions leave an Entanglement between the cause/effect (one foliation to the next)
* Entanglement is a time-independent effect (unhindered by distances across spactime)
* If foliations are entangled then indirectly the entire causality chain of a high-negentropic structure is necessarily itself fully entangled
* A fully entangled path down a chain of foliations can support Quantum Probablity wave transmission (signal carrying) -- not matter waves, probability waves.
* The higher the negentropy the more 'structure' there is in the causality chain and thus the higher fidelity this Probability Wave signal will be.
* Any wave signal can experience what's called "Resonance", which is a well understood mathematically precise wave phenomena, and there is no wave phenomena what doesn't also exhibit it.
* Resonance means something 'distant' will automatically transmit energy (i.e. information) from a far away place purely thru wave effects. For example if you're an Opera Singer you can find a wine glass hidden in your house by singing it's pitch, and then listening, you'll hear it vibrating back at you.
* TYING IT TOGETHER: The thing that Brains and Fungi are doing, that we call "memory", are really just a resonance with their own past down that quantum mechanically interlinked and fully entangled causality chain. Memories are not "locally stored". They're stored in the foliation of the original experience which still exists in the Block Universe and can be "resonated with" (i.e. remembered) in what we think of as "in realtime". If you 'remember' something from 6 months ago, your "past brain" (on the opposite side of sun) which "still exists" is where your current brain is resonating with to pull up your current state (your memory of a past 'state').
* How do we get around the Speed of Light limitation? Because these are probability waves of entanglement that are resonating, not matter waves. People have speculated for decades that Consciousness might be Quantum Mechanical, and I'm finally explaining HOW it actually works. Entanglement has no limitations about how far the spacetime distance is. Entanglement is always instantaneous regardless of spacetime distance.
* EPILOGUE: Most mysteries about the brain are explained by this like: 1) Why DeJa Vu happens. 2) Why brains are 'pattern matching' machines. 4) Why complex patterns lead to recollections without you trying. 5) Why you'll remember something if you repeat it over and over. 6) How false memories can form. Even the repeated "loop" of this "effect" is what we call "stream of consciousness". One thing resonating with it's nearest match, going on endlessly. I can list 100s of examples. Once you realize memory is a resonance with past brain states everything falls into place regarding neuroscience, and how it works. Most of what neurons are doing is I/O signal carrying. The moving charges are what creates qualia and memory, and these probability waves inbound from the past always superpose with the present, to create your next thought.
EDIT:
* A Formula for Memory Strength of any past memory might be:
Integral of `f(t) * Mn` over entire causality chain, where `t` is zero at your birth and `t` is "now" for a memory.
f(t) = Mt / (Tt^2)
Where:
Mn = Magnitude of Qualia Now (current brain state)
Mt = Magnitude of Resonant Experience at time 't'
Tt = Short-hand for how many Foliations Ago time 't' was.
I think there is a mixture of useful insights and novice errors here. If you're interested, I can recommend Steven Byrnes' series on valence and self-models as some of the most compelling introductory blog essays about seriously approaching contemporary neuroscience through the lens of physics.
What I wrote in that post was just the simplest chain of thoughts to point people in the right direction, sort of as an exercise to see how terse I can make it and still cover the main points. That's not the full theory. Writing down everything I know would fill about 100 pages.
Another concept in this sort of realm is "Assembly Theory" by Lee Cronin. He's onto the right track with his "Causality Chain" concept, but it blows my mind he hasn't bought into the idea that with entanglement the entire chain might be a "signal carrier". He's 90% onto the right track. He just needs to realize the causality chain is "alive" at least in terms or probability waves, but as a chemist and not a Physicist he's probably afraid to delve too deeply into the realms of anything that smacks of retro-causation, even if it ever entered his mind.
Memories can be explained through the macrostructure of your brain resonating with some quantum magic copy of it existing somewhere/somewhen else, or it could be explained by neuroscience. I'd go with the obvious and reasonable option and not the psychedelic schizo one.
