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

AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

davidepiffer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

521–530 of 545 posts

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#521

Post by whateverboat »

calf wrote: post #336
whateverboat wrote: post #319

It was duuring my PhD I realised that thinking is essentially 1. remembering all the different information to remember all the tricks 2. trying all the different tricks in the problem 3. optimizing deciding which to try based on different information 4. trying random things to discover patterns (and hence new tricks) 5. explaining your tricks to others so that they can do the first 4 steps independently and come up w…

> That's all thinking is That's more because a PhD (especially in this socioeconomic era where academia is also a microcosm of capitalism) does not automatically teach or focus on deep inquiry, rather narrow research programmes. Case in point, fallaciously reducing it all to a superficial theory of tricks means that by the same light, general relativity or any other major scientific result is merely just a trick. Tha…

I did kind of go overboard with the "trick" thing, but I think the point still stands. Could you come up with an instance of thinking that is not falling in the steps I've written down?

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#522

Post by deterministic »

grahamburger wrote: post #210
hibikir wrote: post #198

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…

People have told me I was smart since I was a kid, but I can't remember for shit. I had a thought when I was fairly young that the only reason I was (maybe, sometimes) outperforming others intellectually is that I was habitually compensating for my poor memory by working things out on the fly, while others could rely more on rote memorization. Anyway, takes all kinds I guess!

My experience as well! My memory is terrible. I often can't remember what I worked on last week. But I've always done well academically and at work because I'm good at deriving solutions from a few core principles and understanding the problem at hand.

That's why computer science suits me so well. I'd probably make a terrible doctor, though, since medicine involves remembering a huge amount of information.

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#523

Post by djhn »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #462
hibikir wrote: post #198

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…

> 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 self study, and being able to apply it to the problem at hand. From my personal experience, a few times I have worked in the "low latency" area of computer science. (Before anybody gets too excited on HN, I am talking about a…

I’m curious now, what areas of computer science (as opposed to copy paste react development) consider 100ms low latency? Were you working with very big writes? Very old storage?

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#524

Post by senordevnyc »

solid_fuel wrote: post #500
senordevnyc wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lol, it’s so funny to see people in mid 2026 still insisting they’re nothing more than stochastic parrots. I guess some people have allowed their fear to completely take over their reasoning abilities.

Man, it’s pathetic watching you crawl through my comments like this. You really seem upset that LLMs can’t think. Is the issue that you have no human friends? I can understand the appeal of the yes-machine when no one else will tolerate you, but that’s no real substitute.

Yawn, petty insults. How predictable.

I took a look at your comments because I was curious to see what particular brand of AI hater would be willing to give up all AI for a single almond lol. I imagine you’re in for a really rough next few years with this level of blind rage that leads to these kinds of crash-outs.

I hope you find some peace.

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#525

Post by OroPla »

bhaak wrote: post #507
OroPla wrote: post #465

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of that is an actual verification of round (or kinda potato shaped) Earth. You are just choosing to not think too deeply about it, essentially parroting things, just like I am. Disproving flat Earth does not verify round Earth, after all. And all your listed refutations of flat Earth do not really disprove anything, either. They might, if you do the actual work, but you did not, choosing to just parrot someone t…

Disproving flat Earth doesn't logically prove round Earth, sure. But that's not how empirical reasoning works. If one model explains a bunch of observations naturally while another needs increasingly elaborate patches, that's evidence in favor of the first model. There's a difference between "I haven't verified this myself" and "there is no good reason to believe this." You're conflating the two. But then I've given…

I'm not disagreeing with your conclusion. All I'm saying is that I'm just parroting these things without actually verifying them - and so are you. If flat Earth gets you all excited, I can also explain the concept with Pythagoras' theorem.

I never did a formal proof of it, yet I just use it because it works and I'm pretty sure it's true. Someone else proved it and I'm just parroting that without ever even having bothered to read the proof.

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#526

Post by complianceowll »

cauch wrote: post #511
Arainach wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one has "invented" that it's untestable. String theory literally doesn't give predictions that would allow it to be falsified. There are an astounding number of possible geometries that mean that any set of data could technically be "consistent with string theory". There are no specific energy bounds where it kicks in - if an experiement doesn't show existence of strings, it's "try again with more energy" instead…

First, it is incorrect to say that "any set of data is consistent with string theory". For example, string theory is death in water if we observe a single Majorana fermion with no partner at a comparable scale. This is an observation that fully falsifies string theory. But more importantly, "falsifiable" means "observations reduce the landscape". It does not matter if the landscape never fully disappear, as long as t…

Why are you always so mad, Cauch? I'm worried about you, Cauch.

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#527

Post by solid_fuel »

senordevnyc wrote: post #524
solid_fuel wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Man, it’s pathetic watching you crawl through my comments like this. You really seem upset that LLMs can’t think. Is the issue that you have no human friends? I can understand the appeal of the yes-machine when no one else will tolerate you, but that’s no real substitute.

Yawn, petty insults. How predictable. I took a look at your comments because I was curious to see what particular brand of AI hater would be willing to give up all AI for a single almond lol. I imagine you’re in for a really rough next few years with this level of blind rage that leads to these kinds of crash-outs. I hope you find some peace.

Bud, you can't even handle someone saying LLMs aren't sentient. Take that fake concern, roll it up real tight, and shove it way up your ass. You'll need it, as all your hopes and dreams fall apart.

But hey, maybe you'll be able to buy something you can pretend is a friend in a few years. You certainly won't have any human ones, with the way you approach disagreements.

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#528

Post by cauch »

complianceowll wrote: post #526
cauch wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First, it is incorrect to say that "any set of data is consistent with string theory". For example, string theory is death in water if we observe a single Majorana fermion with no partner at a comparable scale. This is an observation that fully falsifies string theory. But more importantly, "falsifiable" means "observations reduce the landscape". It does not matter if the landscape never fully disappear, as long as t…

Why are you always so mad, Cauch? I'm worried about you, Cauch.

Oh, it took me a while to find out who you were. Are you stalking me now? I did made an impression on you. I'm sorry.

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#529

Post by throwaway2037 »

djhn wrote: post #523
throwaway2037 wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 self study, and being able to apply it to the problem at hand. From my personal experience, a few times I have worked in the "low latency" area of computer science. (Before anybody gets too excited on HN, I am talking about a…

I’m curious now, what areas of computer science (as opposed to copy paste react development) consider 100ms low latency? Were you working with very big writes? Very old storage?

Is this sarcasm?

I repeat:

    > I always say: If you ask 10 programmers what is the definition [limit] of low latency, you will get 10 different answers.

Re: AI isn’t outthinking mathematicians, it’s out-remembering them

#530

Post by djhn »

throwaway2037 wrote: post #529
djhn wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m curious now, what areas of computer science (as opposed to copy paste react development) consider 100ms low latency? Were you working with very big writes? Very old storage?

Is this sarcasm? I repeat: > I always say: If you ask 10 programmers what is the definition [limit] of low latency, you will get 10 different answers.

No, sorry, didn’t mean to come across rude. I wasn’t arguing, I trust that for whatever you were working on, that was indeed low latency and take your word for it. I just can’t think of what field or general area of computing you’re talking about and I’m curious to read up on something I’m unfamiliar with.
Post reply on HN