not muse pls

No, it was literally an asymptote.

What are you doing now? I feel like after I graduate I’m gonna have to find a new field.

If it’s actually exploiting a bug in a formal system, no. If it’s a natural-language (unformalized) document which no one can understand, no. On the other hand a formal proof not using bugs which can’t be understood, is still considered a proof, though its value is lower than an understandable proof (because as you said in another comment, the real value is in understanding rather than theorems). The prototypical example before LLMs was the proof of the four-color theorem which relied on computer-checked casework.

they pronouns

he

his

?

It’s also vibe coded.

article is llm-generated

dan olson jumpscare

rationality is when i spend hours arguing on the internet about whether Omega could defeat Super Saiyan Goku

Irulan is an acronym of “urinal”

✍️🔥 thank you i will never be able to un-see it

deleted by creator

serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
cool guy
serial killer
serial killer

Ah okay, I didn’t realize that.

It’s not quite clear to me that

We rely on some standard LLM detectors to focus our attention on papers that need to be checked.

implies they are using LLMs themselves. The phrase “LLM detector” is a bit ambiguous and could mean “LLM being used as a detector” or just “classifier program designed to detect LLM output”.

im smarter than everyone else around me, especially those whiny feminists. why hasn’t society granted me a female to be my mate yet?

As I explained elsewhere, my comment was just about the inapplicability of mathematics to this question. But also, is that really what morality always says? What if polls predict 1% will vote blue? What if they predict only one other person will vote blue? Are you always obligated to martyr yourself?

You’re the one who mentioned “game theory” in the first place, I was just directly quoting you. My sentence was of the form “game theory doesn’t say X”, not “game theory does say Y”. I added quotation marks to clarify.

My point here is that you can make whatever philosophical and ethical arguments about the situation you want, but none of game theory, Arrow’s theorem, nor the concept of a dictator have any bearing on it. It is an ethics question rather than a mathematical question, and it is an error to claim that your argument is a mathematical one.

If polls predict 40% blue you should not vote blue “as a matter of game theory”, because that is suicide.

I don’t understand the relevance of Arrow’s theorem. Why is your phrasing the correct way of analyzing the situation?

rationalism is when i pull five numbers out of my ass and multiply them together