No, it was literally an asymptote.

It’s also vibe coded.

article is llm-generated

dan olson jumpscare

rationality is when i spend hours arguing on the internet about whether Omega could defeat Super Saiyan Goku

Irulan is an acronym of “urinal”

✍️🔥 thank you i will never be able to un-see it

serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
serial killer
cool guy
serial killer
serial killer

In his very lukewarm defense, the rough CS equivalent to publishing a paper in a journal is presenting your paper at a conference. According to DBLP he has had three papers in AGI '06 '07 and '11 (which i would not call a serious conference) and one workshop paper (generally a tier below actual acceptance to the conference) at AAAI '15.

Ah okay, I didn’t realize that.

It’s not quite clear to me that

We rely on some standard LLM detectors to focus our attention on papers that need to be checked.

implies they are using LLMs themselves. The phrase “LLM detector” is a bit ambiguous and could mean “LLM being used as a detector” or just “classifier program designed to detect LLM output”.

im smarter than everyone else around me, especially those whiny feminists. why hasn’t society granted me a female to be my mate yet?

If polls predict 40% blue you should not vote blue as a matter of game theory, because that is suicide.

I don’t understand the relevance of Arrow’s theorem. Why is your phrasing the correct way of analyzing the situation?

rationalism is when i pull five numbers out of my ass and multiply them together

… why 7/8?

computer, print awawa.

Also your paper has to be truly irredeemable dogshit to get rejected from arxiv. Like you can post proofs of P=NP as long as it sounds kinda coherent. 2400 monthly rejections is absurd.

i think it’s when you and a bunch of other vegans live in a group home together and argue over who does the dishes

a lot of this “computational irreducibility” nonsense could be subsumed by the time hierarchy theorem which apparently Stephen has never heard of

He straight up misstates how NP computation works. Essentially he writes that a nondeterministic machine M computes a function f if on every input x, there exists a path of M(x) which outputs f(x). But this is totally nonsense - it implies that a machine M which just branches repeatedly to produce every possible output of a given size “computes” every function of that size.