[perching_aix]

Thanks for the fun facts? Indeed, this is not a math forum. Good morning.

> I can demonstrate this [that literally nobody cares about the CDCC here]

No, you cannot. Mindreading the readers of this site by sifting through people's comments is a barely passable proxy for this at best, especially when that audience has changed dramatically over even just those 14 years, and continues to do so.

[onecomment1]

[flagged]

[8note]

the real world problems we care about are straightforward, the main challenge is wealth distribution and control over the power to do something about them

[onecomment1]

I agree. We have a coordination problem, and the way our AI lords are proposing to solve this, is by cutting humans out of the equation

[perching_aix]

> If people cared they would [have mentioned it before]. What are YOU on about?

I explained why and how I think this is both wrong (especially in the ridiculously absolute form it was posted in), and a weird point of contention.

This is a tech (startup) forum, with an increasing pull towards more general audiences. Math and sciences have strong ties to tech, but you won't see people discussing specific math conjectures here much, save for the ones that make the popsci or tech mainstream. It is only chance encounters like this where a person from the relevant neck of the woods might engage, provided they happen to be readers here, e.g. because of a passing interest in technology.

Given this, being surprised that you cannot find a mention of this conjecture in the post history of the site is difficult to describe as any kinder than just plain daft.

> If it’s so good at solving hard problems

A problem being hard (in the relevant sense here) doesn't mean they're lucrative to solve, or hold direct and broad societal relevance. Kind of a theme with maths and logic problems, and not by coincidence.

Conversely, a lot of practical hard problems are, well, practical. They're not logically hard, but in some empirical way. You're conflating different avenues of difficulty, and rejecting that there's even a multitude of them.

> Why is there no real world progress on things we do care about?

We?

Well, there's been very real progress on things I - and I'd think most this community - care about. I've been shipping tickets end-to-end with minimal involvement via LLMs agentically for a while now. It's been great, and an honest game changer. I've been delivering faster, more, and better. Exactly what you'd expect from a breakthrough technology: a wholesale improvement across normally competing dimensions. In a number of cases, the difference was outright stepfunction like. That is to say, if it wasn't for these models, they would simply not have happened.

This is its latest iteration and its newest - alleged - tour de force. That's why it's posted here to extensive reception. That it is nice to hear it being a boon in other sectors too. If this somehow escaped you two, I don't know what to tell you.

[onecomment1]

Thank you for taking the time to respond thoroughly. You made me reflect upon my frustrations and anger. I take back my flagrant comment.

[dang]

> What are YOU on about?

Can you please edit out swipes like this from your HN comments? This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. Your post would be fine without that bit.

Personally I think it's a fallacy to assume that HN users mention everything they care about in HN posts, but that's not a moderation point.

[fragmede]

Wait, what things do we care about?

[scarmig]

Two years from now, when a proof of the Collatz conjecture is announced and verified:

"No one cares about that! What practical applications does it have? It's pretty trivial anyways. More hype from the AI psychosis crowd."

[onecomment1]

I don’t care if AI solves the collatz conjecture either, why should I?

If, after stealing all human knowledge, spending $1T+ on compute, hiring the best in the world while also stalling progress in other fields by pulling funding from fundamental research is a bunch of lousy math proofs then thats terrible trade. There is an opportunity cost here.

I don’t have anything against AI, and I do think it will progress a lot just like all other human endeavors. But this doomer permanent underclass humans are worthless myopic view of AI is not where its at

[whackernews]

Materialisation?

[onecomment1]

Materialization of software?

[whackernews]

Of matter.