201–210 of 545 posts
Does it matter? It's going to produce proofs far more intricate than humans can understand, outdoing humans and opening new frontiers. The age of humans comprehending things is coming to an end: our brains just won't have the capacity to make meaningful contributions to science, math, or technology.
One thing about human mathematicians is that they only publish positive results. Professors etc might have file drawers full of "negative results", but the incentives and bandwidth of human mathematicians makes publishing these useful results impossible. But AI agents have no such limitations and can publish and re-use negative traces easily. There have been some recent projects ( https://www.theoremdb.org ) aimed at…
Yeah, LLMs are great at generating negative results for math-related prompts "We scanned values {a,b,c} from 0-100 and no results" Great..too bad journals will not publish this. But good job, I guess. A negative result is only truly useful if it can be bounded, requiring an actual proof.
That's at least true for current journals, since they're supposed to be read by actual humans. I suppose one could imagine a sort of "AI" pure data journal that just "publishes" (in actuality aggregates) any sort of partial result. This body of knowledge would be entirely useless to humans, but could serve as a sort of "computation cache" for these stochastic systems.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When people make these comments about string theory, are they at the forefront of quantum physics theory and have spent years on modern string theory? Or did they just watch a YouTube video and then keep parroting this?
Sabine has been at the forefront and has the goods: https://youtu.be/1mgxuVVUz40 And for the inevitable critics of Sabine...maybe Leonard Susskind is good enough for you: https://youtu.be/2p_Hlm6aCok
You can take any of the theories that Hossenfelder would spend time on instead of the ones she does not like, and you would find (basically) a similar percentage of physicists saying it's a mistake to continue in this direction.
In other terms: for each physics theory, on 100 physicists, you have 5 physicists saying it is a mistake to continue working on it (number made up for illustration, and there is probably some variations, but you get the gist). You took one theory and found few physicists saying it is a mistake to continue working on it. You conclude, incorrectly, that it means this theory is fundamentally differently treated as any other theories.
(on top of that, it is unfortunate that Hossenfelder later screw up her image by doing way too much mistakes that someone reliable would not do)
Does it matter? It's going to produce proofs far more intricate than humans can understand, outdoing humans and opening new frontiers. The age of humans comprehending things is coming to an end: our brains just won't have the capacity to make meaningful contributions to science, math, or technology.
The entire point of writing proofs is for advancing human understanding. A giant dump of symbols that passes the lean compiler is meaningless besides human beings understanding it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That sentiment makes me cringe. If you understand how LLMs work, you'd know > But not in the "I'd love to learn more" kind I hope you are able to see the problem in your own communication here. Computation classes are interesting because they say something about fundamental capabilities. Two machine that are Turing complete are in theory able to carry out the same computations. They are isomorph mediums of computat…
The thing about discussing or explaining constraints, is that it rarely is useful or productive if the other side does not accept (or understand) the reality of them. Turing completeness is not exactly a high bar, and it's genuinely confusing as to why you bring it up. Your C++ precompiler is exactly as intelligent as whatever is your favorite agentic workflow with whatever harness you're referring to. Both might be…
There is no reason to believe that that you can not fully simulate intelligence in a C++ precompiler.
The precompiler can be simulated by human intelligence, and human intelligence can simulate a c++ precompiler.
Again, you are the one who arrogantly say they llms can not be intelligent without supplying any argument for such.
One thing about human mathematicians is that they only publish positive results. Professors etc might have file drawers full of "negative results", but the incentives and bandwidth of human mathematicians makes publishing these useful results impossible. But AI agents have no such limitations and can publish and re-use negative traces easily. There have been some recent projects ( https://www.theoremdb.org ) aimed at…
The bandwidth is absolutely there ("we tried this and it didn't work" is totally the stuff of conference discussions). The incentives are not. The incentives are skewed towards "a magician never reveals her secrets". The results are presented as if a rabbit got pulled out of a hat, with a maximum ta-da! effect, and little backstory of how the hell did we get there . Don't get me wrong, these things are discussed , of…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You asked for examples, for a technology that we're still building. Maybe you can see the issue with that? Anyways, people benefitted greatly from Newton's laws of gravity, even though we still don't have a quantum-compatible set of laws for it. The laws of gravity are still incomprehensible for people, but the approximation that we've observed is still immensely valuable.
No, I gave you a lot more leeway than that. Take any utterly incomprehensible piece of writing from the entire history of civilization and demonstrate its value. You keep falling back on "incomprehensible for some people" but that wasn't the claim. It was about a text which is incomprehensible in principle ; that is, utterly impossible for any human to ever understand .
Every writing must be comprehensible to at least the author, regardless of whether it has commercial value or not. If I hit the keyboard a few times, I've created writing, but it doesn't mean anything. It is just gibberish and without meaning, so there is nothing to try to comprehend. So if there is something to be comprehended, then at minimum the author should know it.
Therefore what you keep claiming is the only refute of your argument of "an [...] incomprehensible [...] writing" is actually a paradox, and cannot be disproved itself. However "humans comprehending things" is not a paradox, which means that your specific request to beat your paradox is not actually related at all.
His examples disproving the non-paradox version of your challenge (writing incomprehensible to folks other than the original authors) are sufficient to disprove your statement, as he gave examples of both people not comprehending human made and 'God' made writing (the universe/gravity)
I suspect that a lot about what we call being very intelligent is ultimately out-remembering people around us. I think of all the times in my software career when I did something that others considered very high performance, it either came down to either having more energy than others at tackling a problem they thought was more trouble than it was worth, or just bringing back random knowledge from previous jobs or se…
Even in a debate, if somebody just has the ability to remember tons of facts and figures, the other person will seem unintelligent by comparison, even if the other person is correct
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Read the rest of the discussion. The claim is about text which is in principle incomprehensible to humans. If there exists a text which only one person can understand, that person can communicate their understanding to others, even if that doesn't help them with the original text. That dissemination of knowledge is what provides the value, not the mere existence of the text. If that person forgets or dies before they…
> If there exists a text which only one person can understand, that person can communicate their understanding to others, even if that doesn't help them with the original text. If there exists a text which only an AI can understand, that AI can communicate their key conclusions to others, even if that doesn't help them with the original text. The only difference here is the amount of meat involved. Perhaps tossing a…
I suspect that a lot about what we call being very intelligent is ultimately out-remembering people around us. I think of all the times in my software career when I did something that others considered very high performance, it either came down to either having more energy than others at tackling a problem they thought was more trouble than it was worth, or just bringing back random knowledge from previous jobs or se…