I'm terrified of not being able to find old USB cables.
My D2A converter I use to route TV audio to a small amplifier died. It was cheap, but decent. I wanted another cheap one. I had trouble finding any. Finally, I snagged a pair on Amazon/eBay, but it used ancient USB connections. Luckily, I had old USB cables, so I'm good. But what will I do if the USB cable stops working?
There was also the Micro-A which I found on some dev boards. I think the Arduino Due (Arm Cortex M3 chip) used one for the USB host port as well as an Atmel Arm uc board.
Also that weird, really small USB connector that was found on some early digital cameras. I think Kodak was a big user of it. Sorta looked like a narrower and taller version of the Mini-B. Maybe the Mini-AB but that doesn't look like it. I have one in my box at home.
Since school started this year, I bought both my kids TI-84 plus CE calculators. Both were being sold cheap because “no charging cable” (uses a mini-B) while I had a dozen in a box.
I wish that happened a lot less as I have entirely too many old cables.
Binding arbitration when there is a significant power imbalance should be illegal. If it's between two similarly abled parties (e.g. two individuals), it should be fine.
I studied a bit of this in a university course. Between a lot of organizations, binding arbitration is more efficient (i.e. cheaper) than the legal system. If your company wants to make a deal with another company, binding arbitration often makes sense.
Ditto for 2 individuals: If they had to go through the legal system, it could end up being a war of attrition - the one who has more money to pay lawyers wins. Binding arbitration is a way to "level" that field.
The down side (at least in many, if not all, states) is that you have little recourse if the arbiter is totally unfair. With the legal system, you can appeal, etc.
But between an individual and a large company - no way!
In my last job, the (very big) company automatically enrolls new employees into a binding arbitration agreement, but they do give a timeline to opt out. I was surprised I had that option. I even paid a lawyer to review the docs. He said "Yep, you can (and should) opt out. I'm surprised they even gave you that option."
Binding arbitration shouldn't be a thing. If we want to go to arbitration is because we are in the same level of negotiation. One side imposing arbitration or any other kind of restriction on the mechanism that the individual or organization has to redress issues shouldn't be a thing
The counterargument is that if you don't have binding arbitration, you can be constantly worried that the other party will drive you bankrupt with frivolous legal proceedings, and that fear discourages collaboration. A binding arbitration puts that fear at ease.
That sounds like the alcohol permit loophole. Instead of getting a permit to sell alcohol, just buy this $10 pack of peanuts and it comes with a free beer. This is known to come with hefty fines btw.
That said, If the gift is insubstantial in value it’s allowable. Or they’re supposed to give you a statement of the value and you have to deduct the donation less value amount. My thought is maybe the content is or will be free and the app is just a convenient portal to consume it. So one would claim it’s rather insubstantial. But to be honest, no auditor would really dig too deep into a donation to PBS.
I've gotten it many years, but rarely watched it, because my login keeps "expiring" on Roku. If I don't watch it for, say, a month, I'll need to log in again. It's terribly inconvenient.
> Mathematicians will be less likely to work on a problem if there is a solution
Yes, that is Tao's premise, I'm just not sure I buy it. Suppose an oracle existed which could answer any question truthfully. Let's ignore the mechanics of this for now, but it could say things like "the Riemann hypothesis is False" or whatever and we would take it as gospel.
Does this mean that we wouldn't have mathematicians or physicists or computer scientists or biologists anymore? I genuinely don't think so.
I think his point is that AI is not creating new problems. It may solve "the Riemann hypothesis" but may completely fail to posit a "Mythos hypothesis" which is vital to advance the field. In fact, achieving the former may make the latter even harder because it will disincentivize production of human mathematics which has till now been the only source of "interesting" problems.
FWIW this is my understanding of his argument and I am not a mathematician.
As Tao points out, merely suggesting new open questions isn't really sufficient. Part of what gives these problems their fame is their notoriety, their difficulty, the fact that many prodigious mathematicians have spent an evening or week or month or several years studying it.
It wouldn't be as interesting if it had just been solved by the fifth random mathematician who considered it
Notably, gardening a new field of study in math is somewhat nontrivial. You have to introduce the field, illustrate some relevance or connections, and then - and this is key - not solve all of the low-hanging fruit yourself! Because you need somebody else to become an expert in that particular field.
The analog in programming is: if a large company merely open sources a product that's decent but not great and in a language nobody wants to maintain, but they don't commit to maintaining it themselves.
Suddenly there's a bit of a vacuum because in order to provide something of value, you either need to:
1. Implement something more complete than was initially open sourced
2. Or maintain something in a horrendous language while incrementally improving it and keeping it relevant
3. Or rewrite it into a tolerable and maintainable modern language.
What the large company has done is create a vacuum in the tool space where you now require extreme motivation to get someone else to step in.
Note that in this scenario, in 2026, it's actually not such a big deal. I think several recent models could happily translate it into a more maintainable language themselves or happily maintain it in the original crufty one. And so the question is: which parts of this analogy are true in math, too?
Yes, these things are definitely being conflated and there's a fourth conflated thing I think Tao is particular getting at:
(4) Mathematics, the community which is a living system that decides what is interesting, constructs shared frameworks, transfers ideas between domains, develops taste, teaches new mathematicians, and continually emphasizes what counts as important mathematics, especially in it's overall value to humanity.
This is the level in which theory building, simplification, integration and applications are built on. Contributing meaningfully here requires much more than generating solutions - it requires direction and restraint.
Tao seems to be saying that this direction and restraint is the scarce resource that drives mathematical progress, not problem-solving ability. And AI is not only insufficient at it, but results generated by AI are destroying human ability to excercise this resource.
This seems similar to another problem AI sucks at - drafting legal agreements. Despite being great at evaluating, interpreting, and comparing legal agreements it fails amazingly at drafting them. This is because what you don't say/do is vastly more important than what you do say/do.
And AI is great saying and doing things, it's the selection based on implied values that it struggles with.
You pick your axioms and you see what must be true. With math and logic, we can reason about any possible universe even though we live in only one of them.
The sphere of human comprehensible mathematics is finite. Once everything is solve it is not necessary to advance the field. The recurring error her is to say ai is not the product of human effort but another agent. Ai is human. Ai may well be speeding up human comprehension of math to its limits in which case there is no further need to advance the field and mathematicians might need to get a job. Why is this a bad thing?
But this oracle doesn't just say true / false. It also gives a proof. That makes it much less exciting (not to mention beneficial for your career) to find another one (or even worse, the same one).
What do u think lean is? That's like saying a program that works, is inscrutable because it appeals to the oracle of "code test cases" to prove itself correct.
You're either being intentionally obtuse, or unintentionally ignorant.
Have you tried to read the Lean proofs produced for any of the recent high-profile results? They're extremely long, terribly structured, and don't indicate which parts are restating known results from literature and which are unique to the proof at hand. That's what makes them inscrutable.
It's similar to Mochizuki claiming to have proved the ABC conjecture, with a proof depending on ideas developed over a large number of obscure papers, that required mathematicians to spend a lot of time before they felt they understood it well enough to point out flaws.
If AI solves all famous open problems and the non-famous ones, too, without advances in the readability of their output, there'll still be some work to do to digest and rearrange the proofs for human consumption. During that process, the mathematician may well get some new ideas...
For all your bombast, do take a moment to note that no mathematician has actually said openai has not produced a correct solution. Should make you think.
> Does this mean that we wouldn't have mathematicians or physicists or computer scientists or biologists anymore?
In the case of mathematicians, I think not as researchers. What would a research mathematician do? I don't think there would be any reason to try to gain insight from proofs that AI made for the sake of understanding. I don't see what that would achieve besides just retaining extremely niche knowledge (which AI or the oracle already does). The whole point of having that knowledge was to build toward novel work which the AI/oracle does. Also, the time spent and difficulty understanding them could be very high but with no payoff besides just understanding them because the AI/oracle would be used to solve all the problems anyway.
I mean, the oracle doesn't really seem so hypothetical right now. And clearly it's going to drastically change these fields, and mathematics, particularly pure mathematics, must change most of all in order to adapt to the existance of a math oracle (or something close to it).
There is a big difference between different immigrant groups. In the U.S., children of immigrants are also often the lowest performers. The U.S. tracks test scores by race and not immigration status. But looking at test scores for hispanic students is a rough proxy because more than 60% of hispanic students are immigrants or the children of immigrants: https://www.equityinhighered.org/indicators/secondary-school.... That means they probably grew up in a household where their parents weren’t native english speakers.
> There is a big difference between different immigrant groups. In the U.S., children of immigrants are also often the lowest performers.
My comment did not preclude either of these from being true. I didn't say "On average, children of immigrants do better in the US." I said "often the highest performers are children of immigrants."
> But looking at test scores for hispanic students is a rough proxy because more than 60% of hispanic students are immigrants or the children of immigrants:
Looking at the test scores for Asians is also a rough proxy of children of immigrants, and you can see what your link shows: They are the lowest of all groups in being "below average", and the highest of all groups in the top category ("Advanced") - over double the next highest race in math, for example.
I expected better reasoning from you, given the whole "Asian and child of immigrants" ;-)
(As an aside, not sure how relevant your link is, given that it's from 2015, and the thread is about the shift from 2015 to now).
I guess I left out what I thought was a shared premise: immigration patterns in Europe are heavily skewed towards refugees and economic migrants. But yes you’re right that the kids of skilled immigrants can score very high (as you’d expect), I just think that’s not as relevant to Europe.
Indeed it would be nice that people not lump everything into "immigrants". There are different categories of immigrants. I think it is fair when someone makes a comment about immigrants that applies only to one category, to counter with a comment about immigrants that applies only to a totally different category.
Yes, eventually, all of them will end up this way. But the attitude lacks nuance. I paid $120 for Plex 8 years ago, and if it becomes utter crap tomorrow, it's been totally worth it.
Don't think of any such thing as "lifetime". Just ask: "For the amount they are charging me, how long does it need to last for it to have been worth my money?" With the price I paid, one year would have been enough.
My D2A converter I use to route TV audio to a small amplifier died. It was cheap, but decent. I wanted another cheap one. I had trouble finding any. Finally, I snagged a pair on Amazon/eBay, but it used ancient USB connections. Luckily, I had old USB cables, so I'm good. But what will I do if the USB cable stops working?
reply