Actions
(314.14 KB, 1342x1356)
(1.12 MB, 2578x1734)
>>/2093/ Well, you, Kalsonenko, with logic and really complete order, it is noticeable, you are extremely evasive. For example, you quote Rozov’s ridiculous paralogical nonsense (“Let’s imagine that a strong AI is the same as a smart person... well, Tao is very smart... and who knows that Tao, axis?”). Everyone knows Pyudipaya, Perelman is known thanks to memes, and Tao is only nerds... therefore, AI will not affect anything, and what will affect?... the ability to divide into a column!) – but no matter how you approve, do not subscribe to this, but simply cite as food for the mind. And no matter how you quote, and your always hiding in the bushes mysterious twin brother (although the smell gives). And now too: you are crooking about the illogicality of the logical chain you have invented ("as Gowers mentioned, they line up"), but as if *do not claim* that other laureates or other respected mathematicians did not mention Tao; that Gowers simply "mentioned" rather than give a well-defined description of Tao's abilities and contributions to mathematics (comparing him with *Hilbert*, of all people); that you disagree with Gowers (although who, in fact, would care about your assessment); that Tao is not a key co-author in dozens of important works; that you do not. And if only to crook and nothing concrete not to say - then there is no demand with you, and you can claim impeccable logic. Makes sense? Makes sense! But totally barren and miserable. Which generally characterizes your approach. It is not surprising that you are so impressed with the deadlocked logical programming, which is not even close to the fruitfulness of the neural network paradigm.