Partially correct. But the massive investments of capital, environmental resources, etc. are in some cases specific to modern AI, and some of the objections are specific to those. Ditto the overlapping issue of global intellectual property appropriation. (Much of what LLMs do is refactor what people posted on the web for free.)
There are clearly coherent "moral" arguments to be made against mainsteam AI, in areas such as resource consumption, capitalist power, and so on. Some are correct; others, while in my opinion unpersuasive, are at least coherent.
But the article places more stress on arguments of the sort "It's evil to use AI because it doesn't work very well", and those don't seem very logical to me. Oh, SOME arguments of that kind make sense, e.g. in the area of autonomous weapons, but the author didn't focus on extreme cases such as those.
I first encountered it in the 1981 James Clavell novel Noble House. The character using it was a well-educated Hong Kong gangster, or something similar to that.
(The plot of the book revolves around massive favors that a certain character is obligated to fulfill. At one point it is argued that "the ask" for one of them, while greatly annoying, could instead have been worse yet.)
> I first encountered it in the 1981 James Clavell novel Noble House
i'm always very impressed by people like you. i can't even fully recall the plot of the last book i've read, yet you can remember a single expression in a book you read whenever...
For a mainstream boss example I nominate the Lonely Giant in Elder Scrolls Online.
There also are plenty of cute-animal mobs that weren't going to bother you unless you started something. An example that still stands out for me is the first set of sleeping bears in LOTRO.
Lovely man. I wanted him to be my adviser, but he was on leave my second year of grad school, and I changed direction greatly.
When I visited Japan as a tourist in 1979, I asked him in advance to write me a generic letter of recommendation. It was full-page, handwritten. It opened every door that needed opening. He was also nice enough to exaggerated the importance of my thesis when talking about it with my parents. ;)
He told me once that as a teenager he pursued both math and piano. When he had to pick one, he obviously picked math.
His wife becoming a significant politician surprised me. I just recall her bringing sushi she'd presumably made to a math department party at Harvard. She seemed perfectly nice, but didn't talk much. I don't know how good her English was or wasn't at the time.
So that is what the classic "Cheney on MTA" Lisp implementation paper was named after. It felt like a reference, but I never had an idea about what it was referring to. Thanks!
I type em dashes as double hyphens. Sometimes the software resolves them to a true em dash, but sometimes not.
I never use hyphens where em dashes would be correct.
I do have issues determining when a two-word phrase should or shouldn't be hyphenated. It surely doesn't help that I grew up in a bilingual English/German household, so that my first instinct is often to reject either option, and fully concatenate the two words instead.
(Whether that last comma is appropriate opens a whole other set of punctuation issues ... and yes, I do tend to deliberately misuse ellipses for effect.)
I am not sure how you can prove this more "quickly". Trying to do it any more quickly involves claiming some result (no matter how trivial) that is not directly present in the ring axioms. But the whole point of this post is to derive everything strictly from first principles, using nothing beyond the ring axioms themselves.
Here is your argument elaborated step by step.
STEP 1: First we want to show that ab is the additive inverse of (-a)b. This is Theorem 3 of the post.
STEP 2: Next we want to show that (-a)(-b) is the additive inverse of (-a)b. This follows similarly to the proof of Theorem 3: (-a)(-b) + (-a)(b) = (-a)(-b + b) = (-a)(0) and (-a)(0) = 0 by Theorem 2 of the post.
But nothing in the ring axioms directly says that the above results mean ab and (-a)(-b) must be equal. How do we know for sure that ab and (-a)(-b) are not two distinct additive inverses of (-a)b?
THEOREM 5: We now prove the uniqueness of additive inverse of an element from the ring axioms. Let b and c both be additive inverses of a. Therefore b = b + 0 = b + (a + c) = (b + a) + c = 0 + c = c.
Now from Steps 1 and 2, and Theorem 5, it follows that ab = (-a)(-b).
So what did we save in terms of intermediate theorems? Nothing! We no longer need Theorem 1 (inverse of inverse) of the post. But now we introduced Theorem 5 (uniqueness of additive inverse). We have exactly the same number of intermediate theorems with your approach.
I was one of several math grad students who started at Harvard at age 16 or 17 aroud the same time. Ofer Gabber and Ran Donagi went on to conventional academic math careers. I took a less straightforward career path.
But I was offered an assistant professorship at the Kellogg School of Business at age 21, and have often wondered whether I should perhaps have taken that, or else the research position I was offered at RAND.
reply