JadeNB

For what it's worth, it's not a problem with multiple kinds of multiplication (multiplication by a scalar can be viewed as multiplication by a specific kind of matrix), but with the idea that one can cancel in a multiplication. Since you can't cancel in matrix multiplication, you run into unexpected trouble when you try to do so, even if that's the only multiplication in sight. (In fact, you can't cancel in scalar multiplication either unless you've checked that you aren't multiplying by 0 …. Also, I'll note that surely no young mathematician has encountered the P = NP problem without thinking for a sophomoric moment that the solution is N = 1.)

I'd way rather read a translation in which the author themselves has played a part, and at least nominally signed off on it, than one done on the fly with even less than usual guarantee of its correctness.

(I agree that authors should be able to publish in their first language, but I also note that the historical practicality has been that publication in non-dominant languages has resulted more in silos than in broadening access.)

It seems to me like we're saying the same thing. I'm saying that there is a practical bias, as in, it's there in the real world whether we like it or not, that can prevent some papers from appearing just because of limitations on English-language fluency, not because of any lack of scientific content. One solution is to get rid of it, but that's a long-term project. If we have an immediate remedy that works, if the authors still take responsibility for the scientific content, and if the use of the tool that provides that remedy is responsibly disclosed, then it seems like a win all around, except perhaps that it makes the need for the longer-term solution less obvious.

Which part is a sin? Using LLMs to deal with a lack of English-language fluency? I am a scientist (actually a mathematician, if it matters), and, if that's the way to deal with the practical hegemony of English in the scientific literature, then I have no problem with it. Rather that than people with important ideas can't get them before the scientific community. As long as the authors personally check and stand behind the scientific content of their papers, what do I care how the exposition was produced, especially if the role of LLMs is properly disclosed?

Depending on your mathematical background, it may be easier to get a grasp on Tannaka duality, of which I assume, but don't know, this may usefully be viewed as a (possibly too) vast generalization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tannaka%E2%80%93Krein_duality

The article mentions one reason for small numbers predominating:

The first is listicles. “3 ways to do X”, “5 things I wish I’d known”, “10 tools I actually use”. The listicle is practically the native unit of the link post, and its count is almost always small and round. Nobody writes “17 things I wish I’d known” unless they genuinely have 17 things, which is rare, whereas “5 things” is a decision made in a title editor.

But doesn't the title mangler specifically try to strip out numbers that look like they're part of listicle titles?

That's only for individual usage, which, I assume, is small potatoes compared to institutional usage. No major research institution is going to use piracy as an institutional policy, and neither is it going to boycott Springer, since at least some researchers would put up a fuss—because you don't just need access to lots of papers, sometimes you need access to that specific paper.

I don't mean to pick on an irrelevant detail, but I genuinely don't know how to parse ">10x fewer deaths per capita." Does it mean "fewer than 1/10 as many deaths per capita," i.e., the ratio (heat related deaths in Nevada per capita)/(heat related deaths in Greece per capita) is less than 1/10?

> Parquet is unfortunately very good just by virtue of being first, and so widely supported

IMO that is not how technology works. It is great that Parquet is so good at a lot of things, but that does not mean just because it came first that it deserves to be the only analytic file format forever.

I think you and vouwfietsman (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48649412) are actually saying the same thing in different words—I think their "unfortunately" means "it is unfortunate that, by virtue of coming first, this now has a support lead that will make it difficult for anyone else to catch up."

A classic joke about computers (far before this blog post, just the source that came up when I Googled):

https://therefinedgeek.com.au/index.php/2010/09/22/dont-anth...

In what sense? Emacs is a Lisp interpreter with a text editor embedded in it - one can fully emulate Neovim features in it, the opposite is hardly possible - you can bolt Lisp interpreter on top of Neovim, but it won't be the same.

Unless this is specifically what you want to do with Neovim, in which case you'll probably just use Emacs anyway, Neovim's inability to do this is probably not a strike against it. As royal__ says (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48537120), they are just interested in a good text editor, not in raw computational power.

Gold, but not new gold: http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/H/heisenbug.html

Certainly! I was intentionally hedging my bets with 'most' in "for most values of 'every other editor out there.'" I'd still argue that, for very large values of 'most,' most editors in widespread use today came after vi.

I wouldn't dislike vim's modes so much if it just had one combination insert/append mode that worked like every other editor out there (including a couple other modal editors I've used), but even after adding various hacks to my vimrc to help unify the two modes, I still stumble over the behavior differences in other places.

To be fair, for most values of "every other editor out there," they came after vi (if not after vim), so it's not like vi was discarding existing wisdom.

Yes, I intentionally left out the next part of the quote about graduate school, since that seems more accurate. I was disputing only the part that I took to be pertaining to undergraduate education. The full quote is:

This starts to break down in college when the professors often at best only slightly ahead. (they have more knowledge and experience - but in a slightly different area and so it isn't relevant to the depth of whatever is under consideration) Grad school is about advancing the state of the art - if you don't know more than your professor you are doing it wrong.

This starts to break down in college when the professors often at best only slightly ahead. (they have more knowledge and experience - but in a slightly different area and so it isn't relevant to the depth of whatever is under consideration)

I can't speak to the humanities, but this estimation is just not true at most universities in the sciences. (EDIT: As cycomanic emphasizes below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48477683), the part of the original comment pertaining to graduate education is more reasonable. I am speaking here only of undergraduate education.)

From that perspective, the problems are lawlessness and petty crime, not the graffiti. I would not feel safer in a place just because it had reduced the symptoms of those things, unless it had also reduced those things themselves, in which case the latter is the accomplishment.

Why? Do the riches cities have the poorest poor or is it generally the richest cities have the both the richest poor and the most support for them.

I don't know. Do you? If the latter answer is correct and it's backed up by quantitative evidence, then I guess that I have to accept at least some form of the corollary, although there are still games that one can play with measurement (for example, it's possible that being numerically richer in those richer settings can still result in poorer overall quality of life).

Respect for property rights is highly correlated with prosperity and that includes prosperity for those without property.

I think that this sounds good and is a sensible hypothesis, but it's far from clear to me that the corollary of prosperity for those without property is true in practice.

Many people would feel safer in Lee Kwan Yew's Singapore than in the USA. Better housing and health policy, less graffiti and street violence.

Of all the things wrong with the USA, when picking just two, it seems strange for one of them to be graffiti. I have lived in the USA all my life, in some more and some less urban areas, and even from the people most afraid of cities I have never heard graffiti mentioned as a serious worry or complaint.

Sounds like The Flavor Bible - it's a great reference book to find pairings of ingredients.

I think fpshero says exactly that (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48294459):

I have a wonderful book that explores this idea of an atlas of flavours that work together.

The flavor bible.

LLMs would post solutions to the issues that they've discovered after doing a lot of research.

How do you envision the correctness of these solutions being judged? If by other LLMs, then we run into a problem of infinite descent. If by humans, then you'd need some way to motivate expert or semi-expert humans (so that their ratings are themselves correct) to participate in a massive project of evaluating the correctness of a constant stream of content from content-generators that never sleep.

I think it probably depends on what communities you frequent. I am not familiar with the culture at stats.SE, but math.SE has a (semi-?) explicit mission of being more friendly to beginners than MO. I think that many communities aren't so friendly, and don't have beginner-friendly analogues.

Why are we having computer programs generate source code in the first place? Shouldn't they generate something lower level, like an AST or some computational graph or something? Source code is made to be written and read by humans, and is then translated into machine code via various transformations. In theory a program should look the same to a computer no matter which language it started out as.

Presumably because LLMs are trained on corpora read, and for now still probably mostly written, by humans, rather than on corpora consisting mostly of ASTs or graphs?

What is that?

Not to be flip, but, depending on what "fully" means, we haven't fully understood much of anything about the real world.

So, nothing new?

The cosmic ray hypothesis has been dominant for a few years now.

This magazine…

I think saying "This magazine…" as if the flaws of Quanta are well understood and agreed may need additional elaboration. If you mean that experts have known this—well, the role of Quanta is to disseminate and explain expert research to scientifically literate non-experts; it is not meant to be distributing the latest research itself.

Your reading of my comment seems perfectly charitable, but it also seems to find more in my comment than what I said.

> anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation of it, with no necessity of depending on a priesthood to interpret it.

Science is specifically not the wisdom of the crowds - that is pre-scientific. It is the wisdom of emprical facts, which are usually so complex and voluminous that it takes great expertise to understand and interpret them. Science is not democratic - your opinion is worthless and does not deserve consideration unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

I did not say that science is democratic, nor that the validity of a scientific fact is determined by the crowds, but rather that anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation. 'Can' is perhaps too strong a word; to do this is a skill that usually requires considerable background and training.

Here I think that one must distinguish between the sociology of science and the ideal of science. In the sociology of science, reputation matters, authority is often deferred to, and an amateur will have a tough time getting a serious hearing. That is the fact of imperfect human practice.

But the ideal of science is that everyone's idea does matter, or, if you like (though I find it pessimistic), that everyone's ideas don't matter. The ideas of the most untrained novice have exactly as much, or as little, scientific weight as those of the most expert, practiced, and credentialed scientist. This is distinct from the sociological weight of an idea: the scientific community is more likely to listen to the expert, practiced, and credentialed scientist than to the novice. But the quality of a scientific idea is intrinsic to the idea, not to who has it.

“some people have been wrong before” is not a reason to think you know better than the authors of an upcoming Nature article based on a few layperson-targeted paragraphs summarizing the paper from a very high level.

Nor is "this paper is going to appear in Nature" a reason not to wonder whether there might be something that the authors don't know. The whole point of science is that anyone can make an informed critique and self-evaluation of it, with no necessity of depending on a priesthood to interpret it. You can point out the flaws in giantg2's argument https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47995899, but neither the venue of the paper, nor the fact that the argument is directed at laypeople in a forum frequented by laypeople, seems to me inherently to indicate such flaws.

That seems awfully like an appeal to authority. Your parent comment doesn't just vaguely snipe, but points out reasons this should have been expected. Those reasons could potentially not be valid, or not present the whole picture, but "the researchers are from Stanford" doesn't rebut them.