There's a lot of value in the implementation of many strong and fast algeorithms in computer algebra in proprietary tools such as Maple, Wolfram, Matlab. However, I (though of course believe that such work needs to be compensated) find it against the spirit of science to keep them from the general public. I think it would be good service to use AI tools to bring open source alternatives like sympy and sage and macaulay to par. There's really A LOT of cool algorithms missing (most familiar to me are some in computational algebraic geometry)
Additionally I think because of how esoteric some algorithms are, they are not always implemented in the most efficient way for today's computers. It would be really nice to have better software written by strong software engineers who also understands the maths for mathematicians. I hope to see an application of AI here to bring more SoTA tools to mathematicians--I think it is much more value than formalization brings to be completely honest.
Society already funds a lot of scientific research. Some of that funding currently goes to private pockets like Wolfram Research, who license out their proprietary tech under expensive and highly limiting licenses (they're licensed per CPU core, Oracle style), so that scientists can do scientific computing.
As a former Mathematica user, a good part of the core functionality is great and ahead of open source, the rest and especially a lot of me-too functionality added over the years is mediocre at best and beaten by open source, while the ecosystem around it is basically nonexistent thanks to the closed nature, so anything not blessed by Wolfram Research is painful. In open source, say Python, people constantly try to outdo each other in performance, DX, etc.; and whatever you need there's likely one or more libraries for it, which you can inspect to decide for yourself or even extend yourself. With Wolfram, you get what you get in the form of binary blobs.
I would love to see institutions pooling resources to advance open source scientific computing, so that it finally crosses the threshold of open and better (from the current open and sometimes better).
What does this have to do with anything? We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support. With that in mind, I want us to continue contributing to making scientific research and the benefits that it provides to be disseminated freely, while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.
Individuals and small groups make decisions in their own interest. The same is not true of society. That’s the issue that the GP is asking you to respond to
I suppose I might not be understanding your and the GP's intent correctly, but I thought that the question was based on the following sentences:
> I think it would be good service to use AI tools to bring open source alternatives like sympy and sage and macaulay to par.
> It would be really nice to have better software written by strong software engineers who also understands the maths for mathematicians.
And my response is that I think that this sort of work, which is in the public scientific interest should be funded by tax money, and the results distributed under libre licenses.
>We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support.
what country are you in, and what percentage of the public purse goes to funding science? In the U.S about 11%, and with that number I often read articles, linked to from this site, about U.S Scientists quitting and going into private sector work or other non-scientific fields to get adequate compensation.
>while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.
see, my admittedly vague understanding of how things are structured tells me this part isn't what is happening.
the real value proposition here is correctness guarantees that LLMs fundamentally cant provide. when an LLM says 2+2=4 it arrived there statistically, not computationally. for anything safety-critical - engineering tolerances, drug dosage calculations, financial modeling - you want a deterministic engine producing the answer and the LLM just translating between human intent and formal queries.
the CAG framing is clever marketing but the underlying idea is sound: treat the LLM as a natural language interface to a computational kernel rather than the computation itself. weve been doing something similar with python subprocess calls from agent pipelines and it works well. the question is whether wolfram language offers enough over python+scipy+sympy to justify the licensing cost and ecosystem lock-in.
LLMs using code to answer questions is nothing new, it's why the "how many Rs in strawberry" question doesn't trip them up anymore, because they can write a few lines of Python to answer it, run that, and return the answer.
Mathematica / Wolfram Language as the basis for this isn't bad (it's arguably late), because it's a highly integrated system with, in theory, a lot of consistency. It should work well.
That said, has it been designed for sandboxing? A core requirement of this "CAG" is sandboxing requirements. Python isn't great for that, but it's possible due to the significant effort put in by many over years. Does Wolfram Language have that same level? As it's proprietary, it's at a disadvantage, as any sandboxing technology would have to be developed by Wolfram Research, not the community.
I also think that sandboxing is crucial. That’s why I’m working on a Wolfram Language interpreter that can be run fully sandboxed via WebAssembly: https://github.com/ad-si/Woxi
There's a great discussion with Stephen Wolfram on the Sean Carroll podcast. Listening to it made me think very highly of Wolfram. He's a free thinking, eccentric, mathematician, scientist; who got started doing serious work at a very young age. He still has a youthful creative approach to thought and science. I hope LLMs do pair well with his tools.
I'm a fan of his work and person too. Not a fanatic or evangelical level, but I do think he's one of the more historically relevant computer scientists and philosophers working today. I can overlook his occasional arrogance, and recognize that there's a genuine and original thinker who's been pursuing truth and knowledge for decades.
He's been in AI-land forever, the whole idea of Wolfram Alpha circa 2009 was to transform natural language into algorithms. I met him briefly in New York when he was on a panel on AI ethics in 2016, and ya, dude is sharp.
I tried using wolfram alpha as a tool for an llm research agent, and I couldn't find any tasks it could solve with it, that it couldn't solve with just Google and Python.
The obvious use case here is deep mathematical research, where the LLM can focus its reasoning on higher level concepts.
For example, if it can reduce parts of the problem to some choices of polinomials, its useful to just "know" instantly which choice has real solutions, instead of polluting its context window with python syntax, Google results etc.
the tasks where wolfram actually outperforms python+google are symbolic: exact algebraic simplification, closed-form integrals, formal power series, equation solving over specific domains. for numeric work you're right that python wins. but for cases where you need a guarantee that x^2-1 = (x+1)(x-1) and not a floating-point approximation of it, wolfram is in a different category. the question is whether LLMs are running into those cases often enough to justify the overhead.
sympy handles the common cases well but there's still a gap on things like definite integrals with special functions, differential equations with complicated boundary conditions, or formal power series to arbitrary order. for most practical LLM use cases you're probably right that sympy is enough. wolfram's real edge is the breadth of its mathematical knowledge base, not just the CAS engine -- knowledge of special identities, physical constants, unit conversions. that's harder to replicate.
Well sure, in theory any mathematical problem can be solved with any Turing complete programming language. I think the idea here is that for certain problem domains Mathematica might be more efficient or easier for humans to understand than Python.
I like Mathematica and use it regularly. But I did not see any benefits of using it over python as a tool that Claude Code can use. Every script it produced in wolfram was slower with worse answers than python. Wolfram people are really trying but so far the results are not very good.
sympy is good enough for typical uses. the user interface is worse but that doesn't matter to Claude. I imagine if you have some really weird symbolic or numeric integrals, Mathematica may have some highly sophisticated algorithms where it would have an edge.
however, even this advantage is eaten away somewhat because the models themselves are decent at solving hard integrals.
I don't think we should pick a winner. When it comes to mathematical answers the best would to pose the same query to all of them and if they all give the same result then our space-rocket is probably going in the right direction.
For numeric stuff, I've been playing recently with chebpy (a python implementation of matlab's chebfun), and am really impressed with it so far - https://github.com/chebpy/chebpy
I like to think of Claude as enjoying himself more when working with good tools rather than bad ones. But metaphysics aside, tools that have the functions you would expect, by the names you would expect, with the behavior you would expect, do seem to be just as important when the users are LLMs.
I think the problem is just not enough training on that specific language because it's proprietary. Most useful Mathematica code is on someone's personal computer, not GitHub. They can build up a useful set of training data, some benchmarks, a contest for the AI companies to score high on, because they do love that kind of thing.
But for most internet applications (as opposed to "math" stuff) I would think Python is still a better language choice.
The blog post would have been more effective with a specific example of what it solves, a demo, or at least some anecdotes of what this has already solved via these integrations. As it stands, it comes off rather self-aggrandizing and a bit desperate, as though Wolfram tech perceives itself as threatened to remain relevant.
Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
The other day I formatted a sentence out loud in the "it's not just x it's y" structure and immediately felt gross, despite having done it probably a million times in my lifetime. That was an out-of-body feeling.
In George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language," [0] one of his primary recommendations for writing well is to "Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."
"It's not just X, it's Y" definitely seems to qualify today. It's a stale way to express an idea.
I hadn't revisited that essay since LLMs became a thing, but boy was it prescient:
> By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms [and LLMs], you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself ... But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.
The em-dash metric is silly. Some people (including me) have always used them and plan to continue to do so. I just pulled up some random articles by Wolfram from the before-LLM days and guess what: em-dashes everywhere. One sample from 2018 had 89 of them. Wolfram has always written in the same style (which, admittedly, can be a bit self-aggrandizing and verbose). It’s kinda weird to see people just blowing it off as AI slop just because of a —.
LLMs use the em-dash excessively but correctly. This post is littered with them in places they don't belong which makes it look decidedly human, as if written by someone who believes that random em-dashes make their writing look more professional, while actually having the opposite effect.
If you really want to know: more than one emmy-dash per paragraph is probably excessive.
> LLMs don’t—and can’t—do everything. What they do is very impressive—and useful. It’s broad. And in many ways it’s human-like. But it’s not precise. And in the end it’s not about deep computation.
This is a mess. What is the flow here? Two abrupt interrupts (and useful) followed by stubby sentences. Yucky.
Idk about the grammatical correctness of the punctuation, but I really enjoyed reading his writing. Never read something by him before, it was genuinely refreshing, specially given it was a glorified ad.
>"But an approach that’s immediately and broadly applicable today—and for which we’re releasing several new products—is based on what we call
computation-augmented generation, or CAG.
The key idea of CAG is to inject in real time capabilities from our foundation tool into the stream of content that LLMs generate. In traditional retrieval-augmented generation, or RAG, one is injecting content that has been retrieved from existing documents.
CAG is like an infinite extension of RAG
, in which an infinite amount of content can be generated on the fly—using computation—to feed to an LLM."
We welcome CAG -- to the list of LLM-related technologies!
Imagine Isaac Newton (and/or Gottfried Leibniz) saying, "Today we're announcing the availability of new mathematical tools -- contact our marketing specialists now!"
The linked article isn't about mathematics, technology or human knowledge. It's about marketing. It can only exist in a kind of late-stage capitalism where enshittification is either present or imminent.
And I have to say ... Stephen Wolfram's compulsion to name things after himself, then offer them for sale, reminds me of ... someone else. Someone even more shamelessly self-promoting.
Newton didn't call his baby "Newton-tech", he called it Fluxions. Leibniz called his creation Calculus. It didn't occur to either of them to name their work after themselves. That would have been embarrassing and unseemly. But ... those were different times.
Imagine Jonas Salk naming his creation Salk-tech, then offering it for sale, at a time when 50,000 people were stricken with Polio every year. What a missed opportunity! What a sucker! (Salk gave his vaccine away, refusing the very idea of a patent.)
Right now it's hard to tell, but there's more to life than grabbing a brass ring.
I like a lot of Stephen Wolfram's work, but we must also recognize the questionable assumptions he made in many of his commercial projects.
There is a difference between cashing-in and selling-out... but often fame destroys peoples scientific working window by shifting focus to conventional mundane problems better left to an MBA.
I live in a country where guaranteed health care is part of the constitution. It was a controversial idea at one time, but proved lucrative in reducing costs.
Isaac Newton purchased the only known portrait of the man who accused him of plagiarism, and essentially erased the guy from history books. Newton also traded barbs with Robert Hooke of all people when he found time away from his alleged womanizing. Notably, this still happens in academia daily, as unproductive powerful people have lots of time to formalize and leverage grad student work with credible publishing platforms.
The hapless and unscrupulous have always existed, where the successful simply leverage both of their predictable behavior. =3
CAG sounds like fake solution for LLM's. Math problems are not custom data, they are limited in amount, and do not refresh like product manuals.
Hence math can always be part either generic llm or math fine tuned llm, without weird layer made for human ( entire wolfram) and dependencies.
Wolfram alpha was always an extra translation layer between machine and human. LLM's are a universal translation layer that can also solve problems, verify etc.
You wouldn't use an LLM to solve a big Linear Programming problem, because it would cost way more than using the Simplex Method, and you'd be worried that it might be wrong.
I agree, but to be truly foundational, it needs to be open source and accessible for everyone!
That’s why I’m working on an open source implementation of Mathematica (i.e. an Wolfram Language interpreter):
https://github.com/ad-si/Woxi
There's a lot of value in the implementation of many strong and fast algeorithms in computer algebra in proprietary tools such as Maple, Wolfram, Matlab. However, I (though of course believe that such work needs to be compensated) find it against the spirit of science to keep them from the general public. I think it would be good service to use AI tools to bring open source alternatives like sympy and sage and macaulay to par. There's really A LOT of cool algorithms missing (most familiar to me are some in computational algebraic geometry)
Additionally I think because of how esoteric some algorithms are, they are not always implemented in the most efficient way for today's computers. It would be really nice to have better software written by strong software engineers who also understands the maths for mathematicians. I hope to see an application of AI here to bring more SoTA tools to mathematicians--I think it is much more value than formalization brings to be completely honest.
> against the spirit of science
Unfortunately, the bank doesn't accept spirit of science dollars, and neither does the restaurant down the street from me either.
Society already funds a lot of scientific research. Some of that funding currently goes to private pockets like Wolfram Research, who license out their proprietary tech under expensive and highly limiting licenses (they're licensed per CPU core, Oracle style), so that scientists can do scientific computing.
As a former Mathematica user, a good part of the core functionality is great and ahead of open source, the rest and especially a lot of me-too functionality added over the years is mediocre at best and beaten by open source, while the ecosystem around it is basically nonexistent thanks to the closed nature, so anything not blessed by Wolfram Research is painful. In open source, say Python, people constantly try to outdo each other in performance, DX, etc.; and whatever you need there's likely one or more libraries for it, which you can inspect to decide for yourself or even extend yourself. With Wolfram, you get what you get in the form of binary blobs.
I would love to see institutions pooling resources to advance open source scientific computing, so that it finally crosses the threshold of open and better (from the current open and sometimes better).
What does this have to do with anything? We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support. With that in mind, I want us to continue contributing to making scientific research and the benefits that it provides to be disseminated freely, while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.
Individuals and small groups make decisions in their own interest. The same is not true of society. That’s the issue that the GP is asking you to respond to
I suppose I might not be understanding your and the GP's intent correctly, but I thought that the question was based on the following sentences:
> I think it would be good service to use AI tools to bring open source alternatives like sympy and sage and macaulay to par.
> It would be really nice to have better software written by strong software engineers who also understands the maths for mathematicians.
And my response is that I think that this sort of work, which is in the public scientific interest should be funded by tax money, and the results distributed under libre licenses.
>We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support.
what country are you in, and what percentage of the public purse goes to funding science? In the U.S about 11%, and with that number I often read articles, linked to from this site, about U.S Scientists quitting and going into private sector work or other non-scientific fields to get adequate compensation.
>while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.
see, my admittedly vague understanding of how things are structured tells me this part isn't what is happening.
Um, where did you get the 11% from?
Looking at https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/where-do-our-fe..., federal tax revenue used for "science" seems to be <=1%?
Education is another 5% accroding to that site.
So if as a culture we decide scientists are worth paying to do research, why should Wolfram not be paid to build the tool scientists use?
the ticker is $SOS
the real value proposition here is correctness guarantees that LLMs fundamentally cant provide. when an LLM says 2+2=4 it arrived there statistically, not computationally. for anything safety-critical - engineering tolerances, drug dosage calculations, financial modeling - you want a deterministic engine producing the answer and the LLM just translating between human intent and formal queries.
the CAG framing is clever marketing but the underlying idea is sound: treat the LLM as a natural language interface to a computational kernel rather than the computation itself. weve been doing something similar with python subprocess calls from agent pipelines and it works well. the question is whether wolfram language offers enough over python+scipy+sympy to justify the licensing cost and ecosystem lock-in.
LLMs using code to answer questions is nothing new, it's why the "how many Rs in strawberry" question doesn't trip them up anymore, because they can write a few lines of Python to answer it, run that, and return the answer.
Mathematica / Wolfram Language as the basis for this isn't bad (it's arguably late), because it's a highly integrated system with, in theory, a lot of consistency. It should work well.
That said, has it been designed for sandboxing? A core requirement of this "CAG" is sandboxing requirements. Python isn't great for that, but it's possible due to the significant effort put in by many over years. Does Wolfram Language have that same level? As it's proprietary, it's at a disadvantage, as any sandboxing technology would have to be developed by Wolfram Research, not the community.
I also think that sandboxing is crucial. That’s why I’m working on a Wolfram Language interpreter that can be run fully sandboxed via WebAssembly: https://github.com/ad-si/Woxi
There's a great discussion with Stephen Wolfram on the Sean Carroll podcast. Listening to it made me think very highly of Wolfram. He's a free thinking, eccentric, mathematician, scientist; who got started doing serious work at a very young age. He still has a youthful creative approach to thought and science. I hope LLMs do pair well with his tools.
To save others a search, here's the podcast with Wolfram.
Stephen Wolfram on Computation, Hypergraphs, and Fundamental Physics - https://podbay.fm/p/sean-carrolls-mindscape-science-society-... (2hr 40min)
I'm a fan of his work and person too. Not a fanatic or evangelical level, but I do think he's one of the more historically relevant computer scientists and philosophers working today. I can overlook his occasional arrogance, and recognize that there's a genuine and original thinker who's been pursuing truth and knowledge for decades.
Sean also publishes transcripts of all episodes; https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/2021/07/12/155-...
He live streams the (internal) Wolfram Alpha product meetings on YouTube. It's really interesting to watch, I've been a fly on the wall for years.
I tried finding this but couldn't find them on youtube. Can you please share the link for one of the videos?
I knew about this but never attended, so cool!
He's been in AI-land forever, the whole idea of Wolfram Alpha circa 2009 was to transform natural language into algorithms. I met him briefly in New York when he was on a panel on AI ethics in 2016, and ya, dude is sharp.
I'm fairly certain Stephen Wolfram will be one of the few intellectuals today that will still be remembered in 50 years.
I already remember him from 25 years ago
I tried using wolfram alpha as a tool for an llm research agent, and I couldn't find any tasks it could solve with it, that it couldn't solve with just Google and Python.
The obvious use case here is deep mathematical research, where the LLM can focus its reasoning on higher level concepts.
For example, if it can reduce parts of the problem to some choices of polinomials, its useful to just "know" instantly which choice has real solutions, instead of polluting its context window with python syntax, Google results etc.
the tasks where wolfram actually outperforms python+google are symbolic: exact algebraic simplification, closed-form integrals, formal power series, equation solving over specific domains. for numeric work you're right that python wins. but for cases where you need a guarantee that x^2-1 = (x+1)(x-1) and not a floating-point approximation of it, wolfram is in a different category. the question is whether LLMs are running into those cases often enough to justify the overhead.
sympy and similar packages can handle the vast majority of simple cases
sympy handles the common cases well but there's still a gap on things like definite integrals with special functions, differential equations with complicated boundary conditions, or formal power series to arbitrary order. for most practical LLM use cases you're probably right that sympy is enough. wolfram's real edge is the breadth of its mathematical knowledge base, not just the CAS engine -- knowledge of special identities, physical constants, unit conversions. that's harder to replicate.
Well sure, in theory any mathematical problem can be solved with any Turing complete programming language. I think the idea here is that for certain problem domains Mathematica might be more efficient or easier for humans to understand than Python.
A simple skill markdown for Claude Code was enough to use the local Wolfram Kernel.
Even the documentation search is available:
```bash
/Applications/Wolfram.app/Contents/MacOS/WolframKernel -noprompt -run '
Needs["DocumentationSearch`"];
result = SearchDocumentation["query term"];
Print[Column[Take[result, UpTo[10]]]];
Exit[]'
```
I like Mathematica and use it regularly. But I did not see any benefits of using it over python as a tool that Claude Code can use. Every script it produced in wolfram was slower with worse answers than python. Wolfram people are really trying but so far the results are not very good.
Back when I was using it, mathematica was unmatched in its ability to find integrals. Has python caught up there?
sympy is good enough for typical uses. the user interface is worse but that doesn't matter to Claude. I imagine if you have some really weird symbolic or numeric integrals, Mathematica may have some highly sophisticated algorithms where it would have an edge.
however, even this advantage is eaten away somewhat because the models themselves are decent at solving hard integrals.
I don't think we should pick a winner. When it comes to mathematical answers the best would to pose the same query to all of them and if they all give the same result then our space-rocket is probably going in the right direction.
For numeric stuff, I've been playing recently with chebpy (a python implementation of matlab's chebfun), and am really impressed with it so far - https://github.com/chebpy/chebpy
I like to think of Claude as enjoying himself more when working with good tools rather than bad ones. But metaphysics aside, tools that have the functions you would expect, by the names you would expect, with the behavior you would expect, do seem to be just as important when the users are LLMs.
I've always sort of assumed the models were just making sympy scripts behind the scenes.
sometimes you can see them do this and sometimes you can see they just work through the problem in the reasoning tokens without invoking python.
Wheres Godel when you need him. A lot of this stuff is symbol shunting, which LLMs should be really good at.
It's symbolics capabilities are still really good, though in my totally subjective opinion not as good as Maxima's.
What do you think the problem is?
I think the problem is just not enough training on that specific language because it's proprietary. Most useful Mathematica code is on someone's personal computer, not GitHub. They can build up a useful set of training data, some benchmarks, a contest for the AI companies to score high on, because they do love that kind of thing.
But for most internet applications (as opposed to "math" stuff) I would think Python is still a better language choice.
The blog post would have been more effective with a specific example of what it solves, a demo, or at least some anecdotes of what this has already solved via these integrations. As it stands, it comes off rather self-aggrandizing and a bit desperate, as though Wolfram tech perceives itself as threatened to remain relevant.
Sounds cool.
Aside, I hate the fact that I read posts like these and just subconsciously start counting the em-dashes and the "it's not just [thing], it's [other thing]" phrasing. It makes me think it's just more AI.
If there is one person who likes to hear himself talk too much to use AI, it's got to be Stephen Wolfram.
It's like Stephen Wolfram, only now there is 10x more of it...
If you go back to a random much older post you’ll find emdashes aplenty.
e.g. https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2014/07/launching-mathem...
Plot twist - AI reasoned that Stephen Wolfram actually was the smartest human and thus chose to emulate his writing style.
The other day I formatted a sentence out loud in the "it's not just x it's y" structure and immediately felt gross, despite having done it probably a million times in my lifetime. That was an out-of-body feeling.
In George Orwell's essay "Politics and the English Language," [0] one of his primary recommendations for writing well is to "Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print."
"It's not just X, it's Y" definitely seems to qualify today. It's a stale way to express an idea.
I hadn't revisited that essay since LLMs became a thing, but boy was it prescient:
> By using stale metaphors, similes, and idioms [and LLMs], you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your reader but for yourself ... But you are not obliged to go to all this trouble. You can shirk it by simply throwing your mind open and letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you — even think your thoughts for you, to a certain extent — and at need they will perform the important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself.
[0]: https://bioinfo.uib.es/~joemiro/RecEscr/PoliticsandEngLang.p...
When I notice that I change it to "it's y, not just x" just to catch others off guard :).
Oh no! Now it's going to be in the training dataset :'(
The em-dash metric is silly. Some people (including me) have always used them and plan to continue to do so. I just pulled up some random articles by Wolfram from the before-LLM days and guess what: em-dashes everywhere. One sample from 2018 had 89 of them. Wolfram has always written in the same style (which, admittedly, can be a bit self-aggrandizing and verbose). It’s kinda weird to see people just blowing it off as AI slop just because of a —.
There are dozens of us that used them before AI! Dozens!
LLMs use the em-dash excessively but correctly. This post is littered with them in places they don't belong which makes it look decidedly human, as if written by someone who believes that random em-dashes make their writing look more professional, while actually having the opposite effect.
It's Stephen Wolfram, mathematician and computer scientist. This is how he portrays himself https://content.wolfram.com/sites/43/2019/02/07-popcorn-rig1...
Somehow I don't think "trying to make my writing look professional" is very high on the priority list.
> This post is littered with them in places they don't belong
Does he speak the same way - pausing for emphasis?
If you really want to know: more than one emmy-dash per paragraph is probably excessive.
> LLMs don’t—and can’t—do everything. What they do is very impressive—and useful. It’s broad. And in many ways it’s human-like. But it’s not precise. And in the end it’s not about deep computation.
This is a mess. What is the flow here? Two abrupt interrupts (and useful) followed by stubby sentences. Yucky.
Idk about the grammatical correctness of the punctuation, but I really enjoyed reading his writing. Never read something by him before, it was genuinely refreshing, specially given it was a glorified ad.
It's a conversational writing style.
I just read it in Morgan Freemans voice and it sounded pretty great.
Thank you from saving me a click and my brain from consuming AI slop by a person who cannot be bothered to use their own damn words.
Maybe I’m not understanding but what is different than just using existing wolfram tools via an API? What is infinite about CAG?
>"But an approach that’s immediately and broadly applicable today—and for which we’re releasing several new products—is based on what we call
computation-augmented generation, or CAG.
The key idea of CAG is to inject in real time capabilities from our foundation tool into the stream of content that LLMs generate. In traditional retrieval-augmented generation, or RAG, one is injecting content that has been retrieved from existing documents.
CAG is like an infinite extension of RAG
, in which an infinite amount of content can be generated on the fly—using computation—to feed to an LLM."
We welcome CAG -- to the list of LLM-related technologies!
Imagine Isaac Newton (and/or Gottfried Leibniz) saying, "Today we're announcing the availability of new mathematical tools -- contact our marketing specialists now!"
The linked article isn't about mathematics, technology or human knowledge. It's about marketing. It can only exist in a kind of late-stage capitalism where enshittification is either present or imminent.
And I have to say ... Stephen Wolfram's compulsion to name things after himself, then offer them for sale, reminds me of ... someone else. Someone even more shamelessly self-promoting.
Newton didn't call his baby "Newton-tech", he called it Fluxions. Leibniz called his creation Calculus. It didn't occur to either of them to name their work after themselves. That would have been embarrassing and unseemly. But ... those were different times.
Imagine Jonas Salk naming his creation Salk-tech, then offering it for sale, at a time when 50,000 people were stricken with Polio every year. What a missed opportunity! What a sucker! (Salk gave his vaccine away, refusing the very idea of a patent.)
Right now it's hard to tell, but there's more to life than grabbing a brass ring.
I like a lot of Stephen Wolfram's work, but we must also recognize the questionable assumptions he made in many of his commercial projects.
There is a difference between cashing-in and selling-out... but often fame destroys peoples scientific working window by shifting focus to conventional mundane problems better left to an MBA.
I live in a country where guaranteed health care is part of the constitution. It was a controversial idea at one time, but proved lucrative in reducing costs.
Isaac Newton purchased the only known portrait of the man who accused him of plagiarism, and essentially erased the guy from history books. Newton also traded barbs with Robert Hooke of all people when he found time away from his alleged womanizing. Notably, this still happens in academia daily, as unproductive powerful people have lots of time to formalize and leverage grad student work with credible publishing platforms.
The hapless and unscrupulous have always existed, where the successful simply leverage both of their predictable behavior. =3
"The Evolution of Cooperation" (Robert Axelrod)
https://ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/Breakthrough/book/pdfs/axel...
I read his book “A new kind of science” and quickly figured out why it was self-published. My goodness it’s bad and need of an editor.
A big disappointment as I’m a fan of his technical work.
CAG sounds like fake solution for LLM's. Math problems are not custom data, they are limited in amount, and do not refresh like product manuals.
Hence math can always be part either generic llm or math fine tuned llm, without weird layer made for human ( entire wolfram) and dependencies.
Wolfram alpha was always an extra translation layer between machine and human. LLM's are a universal translation layer that can also solve problems, verify etc.
You wouldn't use an LLM to solve a big Linear Programming problem, because it would cost way more than using the Simplex Method, and you'd be worried that it might be wrong.