isn't it sufficient of an explanation that one has occasionally wasted a ton of time trying to read an article only to discover after studying and interpreting half of a paper that one of the author's proof steps is wholly unjustified?
is it so hard to understand that after a few such events, you wish for authors to check their own work by formalizing it, saving countless hours for your readers, by selecting your paper WITH machine readable proof versus another author's paper without a machine readable proof?
To demonstrate with another example: "Gee, dying sucks. It's 2025, have you considered just living forever?"
To this, one might attempt to justify: "Isn't it sufficient that dying sucks a lot? Is it so hard to understand that having seen people die, I really don't want to do that? It really really sucks!", to which could be replied: "It doesn't matter that it sucks, because that doesn't make it any easier to avoid."
I don't think it matters, to be quite honest. Absolute tractability isn't relevant to what the analogy illustrates (that reality doesn't bend to whims). Consider:
- Locating water doesn't become more tractable because you are thirsty.
- Popping a balloon doesn't become more tractable because you like the sound.
- Readjusting my seat height doesn't become more tractable because it's uncomfortable.
The specific example I chose was for the purpose of being evocative, but is still precisely correct in providing an example of: presenting a wish for X as evidence of tractability of X is silly.
I object to any argument of the form: "Oh, but this wish is a medium wish and you're talking about a large wish. Totally different."
I hold that my position holds in the presence of small, medium, _or_ large wishes. For any kind of wish you'd like!
Unavoidable: expecting someone else to do the connection isn't a viable strategy in semi-adversarial conditions so it has to be bound into the local context, which costs clarity:
- Escaping death doesn't become more tractable because you don't want to die.
This is trivially 'willfully misunderstood', whereas my original framing is more difficult -- you'd need to ignore the parallel with the root level comment, the parallel with the conversation structure thus far, etc. Less clear, but more defensible. It's harder to plausibly say it is something it is not, and harder to plausibly take it to mean a position I don't hold (as I do basically think that requiring formalized proofs is a _practically_ impossible ask).
By your own reckoning, you understood it regardless. It did the job.
It does demonstrate my original original point though, which is that messages under optimization reflect environmental pressures in addition to their content.
If enough care about this that can and will do something about it (making formalization easier for the average author), that happens over time. Today there's a gap, and in the figurative tomorrow, said gap shrinks. Who knows what the future holds? I'm not discounting that the situation might change.
Its super easy to change imho: one could make a cryptocurrency, using PoT: Proof of Theorem, as opposed to just proof of stake or proof of work.
What do Bitcoin etc. actually prove in each block? that a nonce was bruteforced until some hash had so many leading zero's? Comparatively speaking, which blockchain would be more convincing as a store of value: one that doesn't substantially attract mathematicians and cryptographers versus one that does attract verifiably correct mathematicians and cryptographers?
Investors would select the formal verification chain as it would actually attract the attention of mathematicians, and mathematicians would be rewarded for the formalization of existing or novel proofs.
We don't need to wait for the magic constellation of the planets 20 years from now nor wait for LLM's etc to do all the heavy lifting (although they will quickly be used by mathematics "miners"), a mere alignment of incentives can do it.
is it so hard to understand that after a few such events, you wish for authors to check their own work by formalizing it, saving countless hours for your readers, by selecting your paper WITH machine readable proof versus another author's paper without a machine readable proof?