greyenlightenment
investments: META/FBL, TSLA, TQQQ, TECL, MSFT ...
User ID: 68
It's a "turtles all the way down" type problem. the infrastructure has to be hosted and run somewhere
yeah most people may not notice AI, but all it takes are a few people to make a stink about it and it costs you invaluable credibility, then others see it , too "cannot be unseen effect". Someone taking a screenshot of a pangram score overshadows any good will the author had.
Nah it's still terrible at writing essays, imho. It inserts too much hedging language and it often comes off as oddly formal. People complain about AI writing because it has these tells, unless your audience are youtube, Instagram, or tiktok, I suppose . But where it can be useful is if you're trying to write a sentence, but you cannot get the turn of phrase quite right, so you can feed it to Ai and it generates many suggestions and you pick the best sounding one.
yeah like the firefox tor exploit the us govt. secretly used
The media always exaggerates these things
the single wheel bikes are sorta similar to Tron i guess. Maybe in 10 years VR will finally catch on, but they said that 10 years ago...
then why do we need software companies to begin with? For that matter, why do we need software?
It has to run somewhere? Runtime environments are still a huge deal.
2030: Someone proves the Riemann hypothesis after spending $30,000 worth of tokens over 2 years.
given how the navier stokes took $25 million , 10k agents, and a private model to prove the easier version of the problem (which some argue is not the true problem) , for an individual to prove the Riemann hypothesis for only $30k is an optimistic forecast, if anything
The models really hit prime time in mid 2026. The disproof of the Jacobian Conjecture really is what set things in motion, in July 2026. Before then it was assumed mathematicians would always have an edge.
AI images and writing are still kinda bad, but the attention has moved to coding and math, where it really shines. It took 4 years for AI to find its true purpose as a computational tool rather than a creative one.
A browser is like a mini computer ,except everything is in virtual memory . the ability to run applications , or play games , such as flash, long predates modern AI. Same for porting and reverse engineering stuff.
The walled garden aspect is not going away. Apple and Google still have a duopoly on apps. Same for the monopolies on payments. You cannot just vibe code your merchant, as orders route though the same credit card providers. Or vice code the interoperability between the icloud and your mac/phone. or the social network aspect of facebook/instgram.
has anyone ever had their mind changed by fact checking?
Most people vastly overestimate their ability to predict second- and third-order effects of anything, including strategic speech.
This ties into AI and investing. A second order consequence of the AI semiconductor boom in 2022-2024 was a "memory shortage" in mid-late 2025-2026 which saw stocks such as Micron , Western Digital, and SanDisk increase by 10x in a 1-year period, exceeding even NVDA itself, yet based on my own research, only 2 people total predicted the memory shortage second-order effect. All the attention in 2022-2024 was on Nvidia but no one cared about memory . None of the popular bloggers, podcasters or anyone else in involved in AI foresaw the shortage or recommended those three stocks. It just suddenly happened--boom--memory shortage (there is even a Wiki about it). My guess is, the rise of coding agents in early to mid 2025 saw sudden demand for memory, because this requires having to store large projects.
No shit, that's why we hate liars.
really? this seems like a revealed vs stated preferences disconnect . People who lie seldom face consequences ,and retain jobs and status. I think it's like, we don't like lying in principle, but we can also compartmentalize why people lie, so we are quick to forgive.
large public interest, as evident by the strong box office gross
in many cases defendants for white collar crimes get the book thrown at them, and I am trying to figure out why hers wasn't like that, and why she will bounce back.
It’s like, "don’t commit crime or we’ll send you to a white-collar dorm prison, where you’ll serve half your sentence after an extremely long post and pre-trial period, and Netflix deals and lucrative opportunities (e.g podcasts, consulting ) await your release.”
This could answer the CI aspect but it does not explain how so many people do not lose weight as they should when dieting. Historically, people quickly lost weight when food was cut off. The Minnesota starvation study made this clear. if people's metabolisms are actually slowing, this can lead to propensity towards weight gain.
The AI rally gassed out in May. disappointing
It's so dumb how the entirety of the 2026 AI rally was compressed into 4 weeks between April-May . The Nasdaq has otherwise been flat. This meant changing my strategy to selling long-dated covered calls.
I did this for space-x and then for other tech stocks. This was 3 months ago. This has worked well given that market has done nothing since then. If you sell a long-dated at the money cash covered SPY call (expires in 800-900 days) you can capture most of the upside in a rally and gain 1%/month of theta decay in flat market.
I would have expected a stronger and more consistent rally given all the AI hype.
Again, I suspect you're wrong; I expect the most important math journals will all pivot now to publishing primarily expositions of computer-generated results, which is a major shift. Soon, the expositions themselves will be computer-generated, too. As far as academia, the entire systems of reward, hiring, and promotion for research math will be unsettled (each of these systems is currently focused on the ability of individuals to develop proofs of mathematical statements).
This does not contradict my point. The journals still exist and are selective and important, but with AI playing a bigger role. But the vast majority of content, ai or not, will be rejected. AI has the effect of raising the bar of quality because now people can use AI for help.
ertainly we don't deride great (human) mathematicians this way (look at all the problems Gauss couldn't solve). Maybe you're suggesting that humans today can still more effectively resolve certain types of math problems than machines can? If so, what evidence do you think supports this idea?
My point was there are tons of prompts that fail to yield sought solutions. so no one reports it or write papers about negative results.
you think math doctoral programs will go away?
LLMs still cannot create research programs or appraise novelty well. They will crunch a bunch of numbers and spit out something which although technically new, is of little value or interest to the the "math community" (unless it solves an important conjecture/problem, and this depends heavily on prompting too )
oh, by "fail" I mean prompts which don't give proofs. The Ai tries and fails to prove what the user intended.
At the very least I think prompts should be disclosed . This is a good compromise between Ai math and purists. Did the user start with a blank canvas, or had some idea of where to begin, and then guided the AI accordingly?
This does not quite fall under culture wars, but I thought it's still relevant given that it's a big story.
On October 6, OpenAI released a large batch of mathematical results, with more than 700 manuscripts covering hundreds of problems: Sharing AI progress in mathematics.
This has led to another round of controversy and discussion about AI making mathematicians obsolete or disrupting research programs that people have spent years working on. The Verge covers some of these reactions in “Mathematicians will need years to make sense of OpenAI’s latest drop”.
Many of the results are still being checked, but the release has called into question if mathematics can survive as a profession, or what purpose it serves if machines can outpace humans. Research programs have supposedly been gutted by these results. "Careers ruined," as the narrative goes. I think that is an exaggeration or overreaction. There are thousands of mathematicians and their interests are very wide ranging. The odds of someone's research program or problem being "solved" by AI are very small.
I don't see anything changing much. The status quo of journals and academia will remain intact even with rapid progress in AI, save for the occasional breakthrough in an unsolved problem. What is overlooked or ignored is the massive gap between cotemporary research-level math vs. LLM-produced math. A math PhD program, especially from a good school, teaches or guides future researchers towards productive areas of research that are of interest to the "math community," rather than results that are merely "personally interesting". AI cannot recreate such communities or networks.
AI is great for generating computation-laden results on-the-fly, but research-level math is more concerned with abstractions and relations between them, than crunching. I recall one example where ChatGPT’s Astra program tried to pass off a finite computational cutoff as a “theorem.” Um, you can't do that unless you prove that the bound is sufficient.
To test this, I produced some AI papers which I thought were great and novel, and the AI said so, and journals rejected them (although others are still pending at various stages of peer review). I had some knowledge in said area and could assess novelty, but still not good enough. I don't see laypeople doing better in this regard, although could be wrong. I ran my ideas through the Ai and got 12 papers out of it, which saved considerable time had I written them myself. It also found non-obvious connections and results. I am really satisfied with the results, but does this meet the bar for publication? Time will tell. I bet not.
Also, success is heavily dependent on the prompt. It's not as easy as blindly prompting something. I made a post about that https://greyenlightenment.com/2026/10/11/the-nuance-the-math-debate-is-missing/ I suspect many of these successful proofs were prompted by experts who knew what to look for, rather than just naively trying. What is touted by the media as an AI breakthrough, may involve surgically precise prompting in the background by an expert in said field.
Alluding to the "airplane meme," there is also survivorship bias: you don't see all the failed attempts with AI . Sometimes it works great, but other times hit or miss. Presumably , the "top unsolved problems" have been queried by frontier models and using large token budget, with few proofs to show for it (save for the Open AI "dump").
It would be cool to see AI truly shake -up math and breathe new life into ignored areas, but that is not going to happen, imho. But I do see AI leading to a 2-track system of decentralized preprints and GitHub repositories of AI-produced results, alongside established academia and journals. They will coexist, rather than the later being obsolete. Overall, mathematicians don't have to fear losing their jobs anytime soon (unless of course you happen to have the precise problem you are working on scooped by AI, and even then, your skills would presumably transfer to new problems.
- Prev
- Next

"Can the results convince experts," that is the real test, imho. So for math, can AI-assisted papers actually get published in journals by non-experts using the tools. Can non-experts make art or writing using AI that is likewise well-received.
This is why AI is so big right now: it's software and other analytical stuff, not art. This is literally worth trillions given the valuations of Anthropic + Open IA. Soon every company will be using AI, such as payroll.
More options
Context Copy link