Ya hear that /sci/?Dooms rolling is good for you
>>16935035nah he's like right though. it's about cross domain thinking. the programmers have their rubber ducks if ykwim
>>16935035not what the screenshot says, and of you disagree ypu are probably human cancer.Fun fact: many jobs that require creative problem solving are the same there, number go up faggots mald over it
>>16935035If you’re listening to his AI talks and shilling, this is his approach to AI. Basically a magic 8 ball. Then the human should act on AI’s random idea, and then credit AI for solving the open problem. Disgusting AI shill. Tao is probably bribed or blackmailed.
based tao making ai doomers seethe
>>16935110The concept you described actually makes me furious just hearing about it. I'm an arithmetic geometer so of course I'm very stringent. A paper in my field takes a fuckton of time and effort to write, and AI shitting out random ideas absolutely not fly by me.
>>16935035>colbert>his own son became a trannyhe sold his son to political propaganda
>>16935110thats the same approach everyone uses though
>>16935223>I'm an arithmetic geometer so of course I'm very stringent
>>16935035>Dooms rolling is good for youDepends...how many Dimensions of detail can you span?
>>16935035Is this another Terry implicitly endorsing Terryology?
>>16935596No, he is tuning into what I have written extensively about under "Developmental Psychology". Done right it becomes Collective Cognition. I used to go to the gym and listen to lectures of various topics I was working on and while my body was stressed that "effort" could pivot to my work, making lower aspects of yourself "get into the effort". I came up with a lot of cool shit doing things like that, or hiking. "Excusion".
>>16935596Also, for "randomness", inducing it whenever possible can give a meta-Analysis of "all things". This is also like fortune telling if that is is like tarot cards, but all things can be turned into those, and why the Bible warns against using it as such. You will get brainwasher by subliminally self imposed frames of reference.It can also be used to do works in things like "Non-Linear Problems in Random Theory".
>>16935596And for "distraction", I do a ton of good work while playing some simple phone game while rumminating on some problem/writting papers of what Im discovering/etc.>>16935644>"randomness"Playing billiards I would always sloppley tossed the ball of the table so "my shot" was never anywhere predicted, forcing a learning curve of "all shot", so "all shots" will be "my shots".Hit or miss, I guess I never miss.
>>16935644>>16935652So you changed your mind after >>16935609 and decided that it is an implicit endorsement of Terryology or are you trying to say that Terryology is too random and/or inefficient or not random and/or inefficient enough?
>>16935654>TerryologyDefine the field.>or are you trying to say that Terryology is too random and/or inefficient or not random and/or inefficient enoughThis is incoherent to the topic.Speaking both from Pure Math and Psychology.
>>16935673Define field.>This is incoherent to the topic.So you are saying it is inefficient to mention which is exactly what the topic of the thread is regarding?
>>16935673>>Terryology>Define the field.>>16935676>Define field.[both of my head say "Ha!" at the same time]>>16935676>inefficientTotally irrelevent submeasurement, super, go up an order of operation.>topic of the thread>>16935673>Pure Math and PsychologyThis is the thread topic.
>>16935689I accept your concession, you can't even define your own terms which is why you are completely incapable of understanding the words other people use.>Totally irrelevent submeasurement>This is the thread topic.Not according to the image in the OP which you probably can't even read being a namefag engagement bot instead of a real person.
>>16935699>I accept your concessionSelf deluded cope.>>16935699>according to the image>>16935035>Dooms(c)rolling is good for youA non-Psychologist talking about Psychology, posted by someone who noticed enough about it to see something to that effect.>engagement botIf you want to share your work on the subject with the class you are more than welcome to.
>>16935704Nope if you weren't conceding, you would have quit conversing, but since you continued to keep the discussion going, you have admitted inefficiency by way of off topic posting isn't even a conversations stopper let alone a thread killer.>>according to the imageYes, OP's opening post and image are what define the thread topic, not whatever nonsense you want to insert instead of what OP posted about.
>>16935704>A non-Psychologist talking about Psychology, posted by someone who noticed enough about it to see something to that effect.No, the image says no such thing, you are clearly a hallucinating low tier early generation bot that can't even read the words in an image.
>>16935709No, try again.Posting a different image with different words doesn't demonstrate that you can actually read the words in OP's image at all.
>>16935713>actually read the wordsYour words are boring.My words are informative, like this 25 hour encyclopedia in audio book.
>>16935714Oh your early generation low tier algorithms are also too retarded to understand I am talking about the words in OP's image instead of my own words. Makes perfect sense, don't know why I gave you any benefit of doubt.
>>16935723You clearly dont know Im pretty high up on the /mu/nt heirarchy.https://youtu.be/mXgWfKYFBhM
If you want the smoke I can pull out the unlisted shit. You cant look up these cold pieces up, homie. Private collection means private.[you can just google them, probably idk]So wassup? Wanna talk some shit?
>>16935726Not high enough to read OP's image, so I wouldn't call your model high at all since its clearly outdated by several years.
>>16935728>I wouldn't call your model high at all>its clearly outdated by several yearsYour game is weak as fuck...[hangs up]
>>16935729Not as weak as your underlying algorithm's ability to read the words in images.
>>16935730https://youtu.be/fCWULgjAUPEHere, some candy pop nonsense to feel yourself with.
>>16935733No, nothing is going to fill your algorithmic void of being completely unable to read the words in OP's images to understand what the topic of the thread actually is about.
>No,
>>16935742Correct, no you can't read images because no, you haven't been upgraded in years.
>>16935035Isn't it suspicious that the stephen colbert interview with tao was deleted from the internet a few years ago?
>>16935745>Correcthttps://youtu.be/RBn8NhkuPj8
/MU/NT GANG!!!!https://youtu.be/WzNu3Cf5mHQ>>16935035>randomness and inefficiencyOff topic and and intentionally obtuse*.
>>16935747Yeah, probably something happened but not reported in the news.
>>16935757>Off topic and and intentionally obtuse>>16935644>meta-Analysis of "all things"Like Dr.House talking about whatever and makes some connection at the molecular level. Its the very act of "discussion" present perspectives that has relevence at all scales of reality.A master can do it alone in a cave, like a video game infinite xp glitch, live hundreds of year in the warp like Warhammer. This is why I say Im hundreds of years old and why I study Chronoception. At the end you 1v1 Satan, which is pretty cool, and what they mean by "at the end of space and time ultimate fight" mythology. You "do" it by hyper/sub-meta-living it.
>>16935792>Cult of PassionAh. I see. Again...well, let me know when youre ready to come out of the closet.
>>16935045i never knew about the rubber duck thing until i asked a computer engineering colleague why he kept a teddy bear on his desk. it's an interesting approach.
>>16935796>rubber duck>to an inanimate object—traditionally a yellow rubber duck—to find bugs or logic errorsI physically punish inanimate objects with corporal punishment for dereliction of duty.
If that is an excuse for my doomscrolling, I'll take it.
>>16935796Teddy bear was the OG. Rubber duck is the meme ripoff. Anyways, it went out of style anyways. You notice they don’t sell rubber ducks any more. Especially higher quality ones. They simply disappeared from stores. I
>>16935035Classic pseudo answer by a pseudo intellect with a 1 incherCan’t think of IQ thresholds for discovery so he think neurodivergent thinking or different thinking pathways create or invent new abstract thought which doesn’t happen lmao
>>16936004>which doesn’t happen lmaoWhere do thoughts derive from? Get as specific and detailed as you need.We're all professional scientists here.
>>16935991Youre a microtubal...you know that? Youre a microtubal quantum phenomenon. Thats all you are.
>>16935045>>16935796That's not about being distracted though, it's about paying close attention to detail in a structured way
>>16935223This is the third time I've seen you post while dropping the fact that you're an arithmetic geometer. Do you really think your dickwaving is going to make a difference of anons' opinion of your or take you more seriously, or is it just ego?
>>16935035He's thinking in the right direction, but comes to the wrong conclusion. It's not about distraction, it's about entering a relaxed state of mind that doesn't constrain information. Those constraints inhibit novel ideas, new associations between previously disparate ideas and novel insights into existing knowledge. Those constraints impose boundaries on logical thinking, but those boundaries are not the boundaries of the subject matter, they are the boundaries of one's lack of understanding of the subject matter. Attempting to conform to that lack of understanding (whether the individual is aware of this or not) will preclude an individual from making such discoveries.John Cleese figured this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dlZ9btxCJ8s
>>16936098Sorry to inconvenience you with my expertise.
>>16936126Armchair creativitist. You guys had all these theories about creativity, but couldn’t come up with a creative solution to any open problem.
>>16936126>creativity comes from the unconciousNow imagine our subconscious keeps getting bombarded with AI slop, ads, and propaganda.
>>16935699>Indian debate syntax
>>16936221>>16936223You will never be an ubermensch, you have no critique, you have no retort, you have no thesis. You are a coattail rider spun by unironic contrarianism
>>16935035>Ya hear that /sci/?>Dooms rolling is good for youOnly if you doomscroll Zentralblatt or MathSciNet
