Post the actual articles that you have in mind. What I've seen is vague slop.

A good example is https://richardaragon.substack.com/p/a-universal-prime-funct... describing a supposed "universal prime function" which is simply a finite approximation using a sum of 50 sines (each applied to a linear term plus a sine-log offset). The 53 parameters are fitted to the first 10^3 or so prime numbers. This is followed by the *absolutely ridiculous* claim that if the function approximates the first 10^3 primes well, it must also fit the remaining prime numbers (of which there are infinitely more than 10^3000000000) equally well.

Then they suggest "A formal proof connecting this function to the RH would involve the following steps" using this great discovery: "1. Correspondence with the Explicit Formula: Demonstrate that the oscillatory correction term in our function corresponds to the sum over zeta zeros in the explicit formula for ψ(x) or π(x). 2. Error Bound: Prove that the error in the prime counting function derived from our function is bounded by O(√x log x). 3. Contradiction: Show that if any non-trivial zero were to lie off the critical line ℜ(s) = 1/2, the error would exceed the bound, leading to a contradiction."

This isn't even midwit math.

It's the kind of naive ideas I had as a high schooler, who was good at high school math and who knew how to code functions and plots in Mathematica, but who had no understanding of higher math. This kind of naive approach to RH signals that one doesn't even understand the problem.

thanks for engaging but tbh just post your own articles. i actually talked to Richard after reading quite in depth and reproducing his code results myself, and do think he's brilliant. my point is he gets the punch line of these math academia papers, much faster.

that's all. easy to call things "vague slop", hard to be right first. Jensen's def'n of intelligence "can you see around corners and predict the future?" kinda all that matters at this point.

just an fyi. congrats on your nitpicking of what math counts as math lol

here's my own paper: https://computerfuture.substack.com/p/demoting-laplaces-demo... (pdf - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s4VER7SNjUFuCBodX_0myXRpNCW... ) and here's my MIT degree on the blockchain somewhere: https://trattner.github.io/img/18c-diploma.png

feedback welcome from nits... you made zero comments on ghostbasin.com which makes some extraordinary claims too.

does niche coding cause men to transition? does autism cause men to become niche coders and transition? does porn addiction cause autistic male niche coders to transition? does niche coding cause autism, and that combined with porn addiction cause a gender crisis? nobody knows. this would be extremely interesting research.

LLMS aren't the only thing that has changed over time in the way texts are written.

if they used older texts as training data, to some extent pangram would just be an age classifier for writing style.

The supposed "magicality" of human consciousness is hard to reconcile with evolution -- where on that long path from amoeba to homo sapiens did God (PBUH) implant our connections to the soul realm?

Even evolution-deniers run into difficult-to-justify self-contradictions when trying to explain how the supposed supernatural part of our consciousness is both affecting the natural world and affected by the natural world, but not part of it.

NP doesn't mean "we don't know a polynomial time algorithm for it", it means "a proposed answer can be verified as correct in polynomial time"

"AI solved another conjecture" is exciting for a lot of people who have otherwise no interest in math. So the fact that it goes viral may have very little connection to the mathematical importance of the result.

Destroying the public space this way results in only the rich being able to escape the constant stress, squalor, random violence. For some reason that's "progressive."

If you believe that even the non-rich, of all ethnicities, should have access to peace, beauty, and safety: you're a "white supremacist!"

I believe even the non-rich of all ethnicities should have access to peace/beauty/safety, ergo we should deport all Romani and Muslims? Sure, that makes sense -- if you're wearing white robes.

> all Romani and Muslims

Not at all. Only the ones that (1) cause constant stress, squalor or random violence, and also (2) aren't citizens of the country. The standards and expectations for immigrants should be higher than the standards for natives, not lower.

Immigration into a country should only happen as far as the native population consents to it, whether that existing population in question is muslim or romani or swedish.

Maybe you only want non-white peoples to a have a right to self-determination? I want every people to have that right. I wouldn't dream of forcing the people of Bhutan to accept against their will an unlimited number of Swedish problem immigrants. The natives of Bhutan have a right to decide for themselves how much immigration, and what kind of immigration they want.

Except DHH wants to deport citizens who don't fit his ideal, not just noncitizen lawbreakers. If you actually read his writing, it becomes pretty clear that he doesn't think nonwhites can ever become true Danes (or Brits). And Romani, at least, have been around as long as the "natives," so to label them "immigrants" is kind of funny.

yes, your plan would require extreme levels of oppression. it's a non-starter in anything remotely resembling a democracy. and if implemented, the outcome would still not be what you expect.

houses get more expensive due to changes in scarcity, i.e. the number of people who want to buy houses (and can afford to) in an area increasing faster than the number of people who want to sell houses there.

the main lever a government has, is to make new construction easier and cheaper -- that increases the supply. commies don't seem to like that, often because they're NIMBYs, but also because new construction tends to be in the high end segment. commies don't seem to understand that people who move into newly built high end housing do so by moving out of existing, on average slightly less high end housing, which then becomes free, and so on... all the way down to the lowest end housing. increasing supply at the highest end increases housing supply in all segments, though with increasing delay.

an option that doesn't help much with existing scarcity, but with future changes in scarcity, would be a recurring land tax (proportional to the local value of owned land). in order to be democratically feasible this would have to be introduced very gradually (over the course of 30+ years) and combined with tax decreases elsewhere.

the article isn't saying you should be scared of chinese models

aside from the huge domestic market (or potential in the future), china has built incredibly efficient infrastructure for manufacturing prototyping/production.

but it's also thanks to protectionism, and their strictly controlled (not freely traded) cheap currency.

if china had to play by the same rules as japan or germany it would not be quite as successful. but the west walked into this trap, hoping their win-win proposal would be satisfactory for all. now the west is too dependent on chinese production to enforce equal standing.

of course the US has its own unfair advantages, e.g. the global reserve currency and the massive post-WWII headstart.