Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

raspberrypi.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 264 posts

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#11

Post by ux266478 »

causal wrote: post #2
dang wrote: post #190

[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)

I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

It's just provencial nonsense, there's no sound reasoning to it. Reductionism being taken and used as a form of refutation is a pretty common cargo culting behavior I've found.

Overwhelmingly, I just don't think the majority of human beings have the mental toolset to work with ambiguous philosophical contexts. They'll still try though, and what you get out of that is a 4th order baudrillardian simulation of reason.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#12

Post by phantasmish »

School-Cotton wrote: post #8
frozenlettuce wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can replicate all calculations done by LLMs with pen and paper. It would take ages to calculate anything, but it's possible. I don't think that pen and paper will ever "think", regardless of how complex the calculations involved are.

You can simulate a human brain on pen and paper too.

The simulation isn't an operating brain. It's a description of one. What it "means" is imposed by us, what it actually is, is a shitload of graphite marks on paper or relays flipping around or rocks on sand or (pick your medium).

An arbitrarily-perfect simulation of a burning candle will never, ever melt wax.

An LLM is always a description. An LLM operating on a computer is identical to a description of it operating on paper (if much faster).

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#13

Post by space_fountain »

andrepd wrote: post #10
School-Cotton wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can simulate a human brain on pen and paper too.

It's an open problem whether you can or not.

It’s not that open. We can simulate smaller system of neurons just fine, we can simulate chemistry. There might be something beyond that in our brains for some reason, but it sees doubtful right now

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#14

Post by nh23423fefe »

jvanderbot wrote: post #7
causal wrote: post #2

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

Thinking is undefined so all statements about it are unverifiable.

Is this some self refuting sentence?

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#15

Post by phantasmish »

space_fountain wrote: post #13
andrepd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an open problem whether you can or not.

It’s not that open. We can simulate smaller system of neurons just fine, we can simulate chemistry. There might be something beyond that in our brains for some reason, but it sees doubtful right now

Our brains actually do something, may be the difference. They're a thing happening, not a description of a thing happening.

Whatever that something that it actually does in the real, physical world is produces the cogito in cogito, ergo sum and I doubt you can get it just by describing what all the subatomic particles are doing, any more than a computer or pen-and-paper simulated hurricane can knock your house down, no matter how perfectly simulated.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#16

Post by qsort »

causal wrote: post #2
dang wrote: post #190

[stub for offtopicness] (in this case, thinkiness)

I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

I agree saying "they don't think" and leaving it at that isn't particularly useful or insightful, it's like saying "submarines don't swim" and refusing to elaborate further. It can be useful if you extend it to "they don't think like you do". Concepts like finite context windows, or the fact that the model is "frozen" and stateless, or the idea that you can transfer conversations between models are trivial if you know a bit about how LLMs work, but extremely baffling otherwise.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#17

Post by an0malous »

School-Cotton wrote: post #8
frozenlettuce wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can replicate all calculations done by LLMs with pen and paper. It would take ages to calculate anything, but it's possible. I don't think that pen and paper will ever "think", regardless of how complex the calculations involved are.

You can simulate a human brain on pen and paper too.

Parent said replicate, as in deterministically

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#19

Post by pton_xd »

School-Cotton wrote: post #8
frozenlettuce wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can replicate all calculations done by LLMs with pen and paper. It would take ages to calculate anything, but it's possible. I don't think that pen and paper will ever "think", regardless of how complex the calculations involved are.

You can simulate a human brain on pen and paper too.

So the brain is a mathematical artifact that operates independently from time? It just happens to be implemented using physics? Somehow I doubt it.

Re: Using secondary school maths to demystify AI

#20

Post by random9749832 »

jvanderbot wrote: post #7
causal wrote: post #2

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love the idea of educating students on the math behind AI to demystify them. But I think it's a little weird to assert "AI is not magic and AI systems do not think. It’s just maths." Equivalent statements could be made about how human brains are not magic, just biology - yet I think we still think.

Thinking is undefined so all statements about it are unverifiable.

Is reasoning undefined? That's what usually meant by "thinking".
Post reply on HN