I just opensourced something I have been working on for months.
— @bluecow 🐮(schizo) (@BLUECOW009) September 1, 2024
I call it “super prompt” because it also allows some LLMs (claude) to come up with really novel ideas, (picture is an example the prompt is larger).
Its built in XML agent format btw.
Github in comments. pic.twitter.com/iMZKiAgRzG
AI bro writes whimsical fart-huffing poetry; dozens of twitter r-slurs gobble it up as an innovative breakthrough
https://x.com/BLUECOW009/status/1830066007886487830
- 26
- 53
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
holy shit this is awful. he put in the general solution of Schrödinger's eq in position basis instead of just eigenstates(its the quivalent of writing the quadratic formula or e=mc^2), the normalization condition for a wave function written incorrectly (the limit should be as x->infinity not n unless youre in a infinite dimensional space? or its the wrong line and referring to the sum, dumbass) , and a random vector calculus identity (maybe something to do with surface terms and changing derivatives/sign under the integral sign?) it is nerd posturing/nerd stolen valor, and reeks of something he looked up five minutes before copying and pasting all the symbols. which took months. the whole godel part is eye-rollingly naive and smells like it violates the halting problem and it spits out garbage that they think is real deep bro.
the empty set is equivalent to infinity to the unit interval?
some recursion?
russels paradox
for all y, y xor not y?
basic hierarchy of numbers.
!mathematics !physics point and laugh at this poser
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why is nobody calling it out? There's exclusively comments of praise, are all these people that stupid? He just named variables random pretentious shit and wrote some nonsensical math equalities, Jesus wouldn't the programmers of all people be able to tell that this is nonsense? Why are they praising him instead???
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Not even half of these frickers are programmers, some did at best some bootcamp during the coof but most are just paying on fiverr to make yet another AI porn generator site.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Yes they're on X
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
Because they're not programmers, they're ai enthusiasts who are convinced ai is magic so they wave their hands around and say special words aka prompt engineering. The more "obscure" your bs and the more you are seen eating it yourself, the more your idiot followers will engage and pay for your blue check mark. Cargo cult computer science?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
I never paid much attention to this "philosophy of math" and "meta-mathematics" circlejerk [only a few r-slurs who can't hack it in real math and want to shift to a comp sci grad degree participate in that] but isn't whatever this guy is saying absolutely resolved by ZFC? !mathematics
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
assuming ZFC and that the notation/symbols mean kinda what they usually mean, all of those statements are false or nonsensical, except the last one which is true.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
That's what I wrote? That those statements hold true in Naive set, not in ZFC?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
true in naive set theory in the trivial sense that if one contradiction (e.g. russell's) is true then every possible statement is true and also false.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
This is why I don't wade into this shit.
I swear all of mfs be like this
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But it's a wave and a particle
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
No?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Why? Explain please. Naivety in set theory leads to unrestricted comprehension which leads to random set equivalencies (null = infinity = real numbers between 0 &1). A special case of these is the Russell Paradox.
Why do you not think this is the case. I will not go into any proof (mostly because I don't remember any of this shit, just the vague names and paradox solutions).
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context