Stay safe comrade

Everyone. Everyone except the cops were hanging out with me all night. Actually, I think the police should investigate themselves. They love doing that.

Sure. That’s fine. But I think you still misunderstand exactly what is being solved in most of those cases. It’s not about quantity. If it was then all mathematicians would be spending time on filling “gaps”. Mathematicians aren’t focused on filling in gaps as a lot of the time that type of brute force work is not meaningful to the field of mathematics. They are focused on proving (or disproving) axioms that are foundational to the field. AI has not proven or disproven any mathematical axiom.

The biggest proof it’s ever provided was for “Erdos Problem”. Which is essentially just a fun “dot placement optimization problem” that Erdos came up with, was never taken too seriously, and was difficult enough that spending time on it in academics would likely get you laughed at.

It’s formal proof yields almost nothing to the field.

On top of that, it was “solved” by an AI math startup with closed source software. There is literally no confirmation that it was AI solving it organically or if the mathematicians themselves solved it during developing the AI and saw a means of getting headlines and more capital investment.

Please, be more skeptical. I double majored in Math and CS and have worked in the field for over a decade. There are applications for AI that are helpful. But, right now, people are falling for a lot of the hype and lies that are being pushed around to attract capital investment. You’re not an investor, you can be smarter and more skeptical than that.

In a decade we’re going to have a lot of reflection on this time and the lies being told about the usefulness of AI.

We live in a world where one of the most valued companies in the world pretends it’s AI robots are real and not just being remote operated by a human. You think AI startups aren’t giving credit to AI for the work of humans? They all are. Because it gets them investment.

A mostly fun and non helpful math problem gets solved by a human. The math community enjoys it. Laughs a little at the guy who spent too much of his life solving it. And no one outside the community hears about it.

But if you say “AI did it”. You get millions of dollars in investment.

I don’t have evidence a human solved it. But they also don’t have evidence AI solved it either. And all financial incentives right now are in saying “AI did it”. That is why you should be extremely skeptical of all these things you hear about the capability of AI.

No one advocated for violence, the comment you responded to is pointing to the hypocrisy of talking about population reduction when 100 billionares do more damage to the environment and world than millions of people combined.

No one advocated for violence as the solution; or said it should be used as a first step. You still have not addressed my first comments criticism.

You aren’t having a conversation or trying to “make me think”. You’re injecting opinions into comments that were never expressed. Maybe reread this conversation. You’re putting a lot of effort into replies that aren’t responding to what is being said.

Yeah, that’s not true. The math proofs it has solved are not “more difficult than any solved by a living person”. Many of the proofs AI has solved are corner case conditions that are not being actively worked on by mathematicians. In a trivial example. Image a problem like:

x = n + 25

AI says, hey, let’s assume n=3.

AI solved the proof that 3 + 25 = 28.

Then we get an article posted about how AI solved the impossible problem of n + 25

Now, it can be helpful to have these less general proofs solved. It can help mathematicians in creating a more general proof (what they are usually focused on).

But, as far as I’m aware, these are most of the contributions of AI so far in the field of mathematics. You’re falling for the hype around it. It’s mostly filling in gaps for corner cases that are not actively being worked on.

Which makes sense. Because it’s just a text generation algorithm that predicts the most likely characters. It’s using training data for the n = 3 case that it learned from another already solved problem and then injecting it into the unsolved problem. Sometimes is spits out something that makes sense, a human being has to verify it, and then a corner case for mathematical proof is “solved”.

It’s not capable of thinking or rationalizing to anything new. It is filling in gaps in a field of research that is not primarily focused on “gap filling”.

It’s why it’s “having success” in Math but not Physics. Mathematicians focus on general proofs that apply under all conditions. So, the field inevitably has a lot of problems that could be solved by a lot of brute force for specific conditions.

In Physics, scientist are constantly trying to “fill gaps”. They work with real world measurements and observations. Any new “gap” is constantly being tested. AI has no gaps to fill with its brute force way of “thinking”. And it’s completely incapable of coming up with theories or hypothesis on a level a human does.

This is why it’s not solving ground breaking mathematics proofs and why it is mostly useless in replacing humans in the scientific process. Because it isn’t actually thinking.

Sorry, rant. But this is something that bothers me and you hit a nerve.

Not at all. AI is primarily a tool for domestic surveillance and war. AI cannot produce surplus value to be extracted for profit. They aren’t trying to replace workers with AI. At least not in the long term.

I think you are assuming the destructive effects of “wealth” are constant. This is not at all reasonable. 1 million people being able to afford shelter, healthcare, and food is not comparable to the unnecessary destruction we see today brought about by datacenters, private jets, super yachts, wars for the capitalist military industrial complex, etc, etc. Those absurdities do not exist without a concentration of wealth.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you are saying? But, “wealth” does not have the linear relationship with the negative outcomes that you are implying. It is very much the concentration of wealth and power that results in these outcomes. The destructive power wealth has grows exponentially with its concentration in fewer and fewer hands. Simply because as it concentrates the wealthy are able to both cause the destruction AND avoid their consequences at the same time.

Nothing you said here was in response to the point of my comment. You instead tried to change the conversation about my personal experiences. I guess I have to provide a a resume in order for you to address my direct criticism of your comment.

I’ll remind you what is was. I was criticizing the part where you ignored historical class struggle and instead suggested people were advocating for violence as a first step.

Also, the “we” I was using was referring to the working class and specifically those with class consciousness. It’s pretty obvious in the context of the conversation.

Do you want respond to my criticism or do I have to provide a resume first?

Communism is, by definition, “a classless, moneyless, stateless society”.

When people say “no communist countries have existed” this is what they mean. Because that’s not ever been achieved.

There are countries that are run by communist parties (China). But these are not countries that have “obtained Communism”. You are confused because you never looked up the definition of a communist society.

For example, China is a country run by the Chinese Communist Party under a state structure of Socialism (with Chinese characteristics).

Since you don’t understand basic definitions I doubt that you’re criticisms of “communist countries” were very insightful.

No one suggested it first. We’ve been working for decades through peaceful measures. Hell, we’re still doing it now and they are responding with marking our organizations as “domestic terrorist” with both parties spending every ounce of AIPAC funds to stop us.

Those that make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable. We are right on that edge right now. We don’t make the choice to use violence. They do.

It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine a world without capitalism.

We don’t give their heirs wealth my dude. It’s a revolution. You round up the ruling class and seize their wealth and give it back to the masses that produced it.

I know “that’ll never happen”. Said every person throughout history just before a revolution.

Absolutely! Famously non capitalist countries have no capability of funding studies. Nope. Hell, we’d never have gotten the first satellite or first person into space without capitalism! Everything good comes from capitalism! And everything bad, yeah, it’s socialism. And if it’s REALLY bad, it’s communism.

Cool. You can “say that”. But that doesn’t happen. People have kids.

Come up with one idea or policy that actually results in people having less children? Because that’s what the comment you replied to is saying. They are talking about the inevitable policies that come from the “just have less” ideas.

The idea is pointless if it just lives in your head. Would be great if everyone that read this comment gave me $1. But no one’s gonna do that unless I actually had a reason for them to. The reasons to place on people to have less children either don’t work or are human rights violations.

You sound like the dumb “smart guy” that says “we could have world peace if everyone just smoked weed everyday”.

You don’t solve something by coming up with a solution with no means of reaching it. Hell, it’s not really a solution, it’s just a conclusion. It’s why the “population problem” is so good for propaganda. It redirects the problem and distracts stupid people that haven’t actually thought through how that would work.

Not with capitalism. Look at countries that do not take in many immigrants. South Korea and Japan are the results of what you’re talking about.

It’s not just about industrialization. The exploitation of labor under capitalism still requires bodies to build its alter. The contradictions of capitalism are the primary problem. Value comes from labor. The profits of capital come from labor. They don’t want “less people”. They just want you to hate other workers and see them as “the problem”.

It’s an analogy mate. “Them not being police officers” is a difference not important to the core of the analogy.

You’re looking at something like “a pen is to write as a knife is cut” and saying “a knife can write by carving”.

But it would be dumb to generalize all “911 callers” as ACAB. It would be correct to criticize the “911 callers” that use the institutions of white supremacy to harass and abuse black people. That’s the point. There is a line between “Christian church attendees” and “the church” itself. That line is can be crossed by attendees. But they are not the church themselves.

Same goes for “911 callers”. All pay taxes and some benefit and exploit the the structures of white supremacy.

I’m all for “all Catholic priest are bastards” as their relationship with the church cannot exist without knowledge of its crimes and the institutional backing of those crimes. They uphold the structures directly.

But to say that “all Catholics are bastards” would be removing the material reasons for the ACPAB and instead placing the claim within the framing of Idealism

The the equivalent of including anyone that’s ever called 911 in ACAB.

There are plenty of Christians with that kinder interpretation though. You think Ms. Rachel is advocating for child abuse because she’s Christian?

The “/r/atheist” position is to tell those that are religious what they believe. It’s like telling someone what their music taste is. If a Christian is using their religion to justify their bigotry or abusive behavior; you can call that out. But religion isn’t a strict adherence to a religious text. It’s significantly more about community and unique to every person.

Edit: I’m not a Christian or religious. I just believe people when they tell me what they believe. I don’t try to tell them they believe something else.

It’s things like this that confirm to me that Trump and most of his administration are not true ideological fascist. Ideological fascist would be sure to maintain some level of support from their ground troops. Things like this show me that there are some ideological fascist within the admin; but, Trump himself, is entirely focused on things that benefit him directly. Trump is enjoying stealing billions. If doing fascist shit helps him do that (and it does) he will. If it actually causes him some personal sacrifice he is not going to do that to obtain some “fascist objectives”. It’s why he doesn’t care if ICE is successful as long as it’s implementation is exploitable for his own personal profit.

It’s why when people treat him like Hitler it’s not quite fair. Hitler had real ideology he wanted to implement and was not only guided by increasing his wealth. Trump uses ideology and propaganda specifically to benefit himself. He is a “crypto fascist” that has built the foundations for an ideological fascist to take power in.

It limits this rise in fascism to an extent that a true ideological fascist wouldn’t. It’s also worrying to imagine a real ideological fascist and white supremacist like Tucker Carlson or a puppet fascist like JD Vance being in power. They would be smart enough to fill the pockets of their brown shirts.

Which is it then? Do we organize in nonviolent ways? Do we organize in violent ways? Or would Americans continue to do nothing if their schools were being bombed?

There is a limit for every person. That was my point. Americans have their limit too; it’s just not genocide in Gaza or bombing civilians in Iran.

I think you underestimate how much Trump absolutely despises red states as well. He just hates poor people. He says shit his base will like. But have you seen the absolute destruction to Texas, Georgia, etc with datacenters? He doesn’t fucking care. The only group he gives material benefits to are the ICE agents terrorizing cities.