I agree with this. I've use Wikipedia as an analogy for LLMs a few times, and it's clear that people forgot the extreme hostility so many academics had to it in the early 2000s

Show Post

Me: (being murdered by the AI paperclip maximizer) Bluesky: Actually it can't 'murder' you. Murder implies intent.

Show Post

That man is a stain on the planet.

Show Post

It is debatable whether LLMs can or can't access the meaning of a proof, or have an understanding of it. But LLMs can produce formal proofs just like they can produce text, images, and chess moves. (Perhaps doing so in a way very different from humans, of course.)

Show Post

I agree that there is an important distinction between written symbols & the meaning or understanding of a proof. But in math&CS, formal proofs are called proofs for good reason, I think? A proof in Lean is just text, but it is among the strongest guarantees of something being true that exists.

Show Post