new | show | ask | jobs Github

0x1ceb00da a day ago

[flagged]

▲

j_maffe a day ago | parent | next [-]

Cheating how? The proof is in the pudding...

▲

fn-mote a day ago | parent [-]

On one hand, yes.

The parent wants to be skeptical… nothing wrong with being suspicious of marketing claims, right?

I would be a lot less impressed if I found out the session was guided by an expert in the field who already had a good idea of where to look. For example, I don’t believe that the results Terrance Tao gets from an LLM are comparable to what I am going to get.

I’m not even saying I’m a skeptic. Just that there’s nothing wrong with keeping your eyes open and asking for details.

	▲	ceejayoz a day ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> I would be a lot less impressed if I found out the session was guided by an expert in the field who already had a good idea of where to look. Why? The conjecture stood for over a hundred years. Plenty of such experts have tried. "Fable makes experts able to solve things" is still a big story. I don't need to personally be able to do it for it to be a big story.
	▲	aeon_ai a day ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Because AI is only impressive if the average Taco Bell employee can guide it to address niche domain topics? It seems obvious to me that you’d need someone to point at a thing and say “pay attention to that”, as a baseline, to have any results at all with the current architecture and technology

▲

Redoubts a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Dude what?