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”.

Depends on if this is a pamphlet you are handing out or something meant to be posted as a poster. Far too much content for a poster.

The “Buy, Borrow, Die” cycle would be much more simple to explain rather than the offshore stuff. It’s very simple to explain and also shows how the rich live off of their untaxed stock and never sell it.

It’s most definitely a representative sample of the people that show up to vote in democratic primaries though. Which largely shapes politics

That movement was largely a place for young liberals, interested in resistance to Vietnam, to go and be useless and not become socialist. It was a means of keeping them separated from a growing militant resistance to the apartheid in America (Malcom X, Black Pathers, etc).

If you’re smoking weed and telling everyone “just give peace a chance” you can stand idle as the violent state attacks black neighborhoods for mass incarceration and condemn “violence on all sides”. Which is just allowing the violence of the oppressive state to be justified.

Being against bad things while telling everyone else “not yet” when they try to fight to stop the bad things. That’s American liberalism in a nutshell.

Hell, listen to Kings frustration.

I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen’s Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice

Or in song form by Phil Ochs: https://youtu.be/3cdqQ2BdgOA

Pointing to historical examples that liberals of the past failed on is hard for modern day liberals though. They know the Jim Crow south was bad. They know the Vietnam war was bad. But they’re unable to realize it until after the fact. Israel took them 2 years of genocide to start acknowledging.

I know a lot of liberals that fit the first definition. The only real difference being they enjoy symbolic empathy.

The people I see living in my neighborhood with the “all are welcome here” pride + blm flags in their yard; the same people that show up at our town hall meetings fighting public transit, affordable housing, housing for the homeless.

They spend a lot of their energy having to explain why “maintaining the character and culture” of their neighborhood is all they want. Sometimes I prefer the rascist I grew up with in the south. You don’t have to spend 30 minutes to realize their garbage people. They at least tell you straight up.

There aren’t any liberals that would like Trump if he was a Democrat. Because he doesn’t do the symbolic empathy. That’s why they loved Obama so much. They used him like a BLM flag in their yard.

Don’t believe me? Go to a city hall meeting in your “Liberal” city for a couple weeks.

Edit: A lot of people that have never been to a city hall meeting in their city.

No war in modern history has shut off a supply of energy to this degree. China is literally currently holding up the world economy and is the only reason the world is not spiralling into chaos right now. They cut their purchases of oil by 40% to assist other east Asian countries almost entirely dependent on oil from west Asia. That cannot last forever. Even with China moving full speed ahead into renewables.

Oil is a global commodity. The US and it’s people will be just as heavily impacted as any other nation unless our government literally bans oil exports. Which this admin will not do.

The world and Americans especially are very much in denial of how bad this is going to get.

This bubble is quite different in my opinion than something like 2008. I believe it represents the concentration of wealth under fascism. It may “pop” but the resulting fallout will most likely be the conversion of America to a war economy. Which will sustain the hunger of capital further. And we might even get that conversion before the bubble pops.

These AI data centers aren’t being built so they can create chat bots that sell you shit. They’re being created for mass surveillance computational power and AI warfare.

I may be wrong. But one thing I do know is true is that when the bubble “pops” it’s not going to get better for the working class. It’s not going to result in some uprising against fascism. It’s going to be a massive fuel for xenophobia and white supremacy like we’ve never seen before.

So, all I can do in the mean time is try to reach more people and message through work in DSA. In hopes that we have enough resistance to it to be meaningful.

The bubble popping isn’t gonna mean you can finally afford a house. It’ll mean that your grocery store runs dry and people die not being able to get healthcare.

With enough people, it takes about 2-3 days of an empty stomach.

I think our biggest difference in opinion is that you seem to think Trump brought fascism to America. Would that be fair to say?

I can understand that belief. But, I don’t blame Trump solely for the rise in fascism. He didn’t bring it. We are talking about a country that had an apartheid state of white supremacy when many of the representatives in office today were already grown adults.

White supremacy is a fundamental part of the American political system. If you always analyze your politicals based on an single election between two presidential candidates then what you are saying makes sense in a vacuum.

But, that is not how we got Trump. We didn’t get Trump just because he won the election in 2016. If Trump died from a heart attack in 2013 we very much would have gotten the same dominant Republican party. The Republican party and it’s tea party was ripe for the conditions of a politician like Trump. Roe V. Wade would have still been overturned. ICE would have still been expanded.

The Democratic party has been running on “lesser evil” campaigns since they lost to Reagan and abandoned the working class party of FDR.

Trump is leading fascism in America. He didn’t create it though.