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

You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

faisalabid.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#21

Post by Xeoncross »

justonceokay wrote: post #15
gjm11 wrote: post #12

I'm not a fan of the glib "everyone knows AI systems don't really think, they are just stochastic parrots, all they do is regurgitate ideas they've stolen" schtick, but this article is the reverse of that only worse. Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao. The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite t…

There’s a little nagging thought in my head when I hear that some people are helped immensely by AI and others are not. It’s that there is a threshold for intelligence that the AI either impresses you or it does not. I’m sure this threshold will continue to rise

It feels like the level of skill needed to remain above GenAI's ability to code, write, produce songs, or drawings keeps rising. All of us have strengths, things we do better than AI still (even basic companionship abilities), but I wonder how long that will be true.

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#22

Post by AlexCoventry »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #18
AlexCoventry wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest paying the $20/month rent, and trying to use ChatGPT o3/o4-mini-high/o1-pro as a tutor, to help you understand something you're curious about but never really had time or energy to dig into before. It's pretty glorious, and a straight-up pedagogical revolution, IMO.

I would suggest getting a library card, and trying to read a good book, writing down any questions you might have for later review. While it doesn't feel as though you're learning as much, or as quickly, most people will find that they actually know a lot more about the subject afterwards. A chat log that takes me 2 hours to produce, I can read in 5 minutes. There's no world in which that's efficient pedagogy, even d…

Try it with a subject where you'd have to pick up text from multiple references, like a modern deep learning paper if that's not your field. I've tried it both ways, and I know what works for me, FWIW.

The higher ChatGPT services hallucinate much less, and you can tell them to give confidence estimates on their claims. The confidence estimates are pretty reliable, in my experience.

ChatGPT is improving very swiftly. A couple of months ago I was equally dismissive.

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#24

Post by AlexCoventry »

verbify wrote: post #20
AlexCoventry wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would suggest paying the $20/month rent, and trying to use ChatGPT o3/o4-mini-high/o1-pro as a tutor, to help you understand something you're curious about but never really had time or energy to dig into before. It's pretty glorious, and a straight-up pedagogical revolution, IMO.

How do you know it isn't hallucinating? My experience of AI is that it can be very convincing and produce information that "looks right".

I mostly use it in fields where its claims are easily verifiable.

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#25

Post by personjerry »

gjm11 wrote: post #12

I'm not a fan of the glib "everyone knows AI systems don't really think, they are just stochastic parrots, all they do is regurgitate ideas they've stolen" schtick, but this article is the reverse of that only worse. Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao. The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite t…

> The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite this so it sounds smarter" is that that's what they're best at.

I disagree. The reason is that that's what aligns best with what most people are looking for help on.

There is a disconnect between reality and the AI product consumer envisioned here. There is no magical enlightened user who's going to unleash their inner potential.

How much physics or math does the average person know? How much do you think they even WANT to know? The answer is surprisingly little.

On a day-to-day basis the layman writes emails and other mundane tasks, and wants to do them faster and easier.

Having a squad of geniuses in my pocket doesn't pay my bills.

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#26

Post by QuadmasterXLII »

01HNNWZ0MV43FF wrote: post #16
dkarl wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know why we experience things. It's bizarre that we do. Nothing in our understanding of the universe gives any indication that a bunch of atoms thrown together by cosmological processes and then assembled into self-replicating patterns by evolution should be able to experience what is happening to them. Sure, a computer or an LLM isn't alive, but we have no idea if "being alive" is what is required for consc…

Computers, pigs, cows, and chickens are conscious, but it doesn't matter. Humans value things that are hard to replace. (This is a first-order approximation) Abortions are okay because fetuses only take 1 person nine months to make, and it's their decision whether to keep it. Infanticide is not okay because a healthy baby is difficult to replace, and also lots of people might like to adopt it, and if it's breathing o…

Only concern is its a bit tautological, when pets are valued because they’re hard to replace, but they are hard to replace (i.e. new one from the shelter doesn’t make all better) because _that_ one was valuable.

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#27

Post by jxjnskkzxxhx »

gjm11 wrote: post #12

I'm not a fan of the glib "everyone knows AI systems don't really think, they are just stochastic parrots, all they do is regurgitate ideas they've stolen" schtick, but this article is the reverse of that only worse. Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao. The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite t…

> Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao

Oh is that what the point of the article was? That is so stupid that it didnt even cross my mind.

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#28

Post by jxjnskkzxxhx »

justonceokay wrote: post #15
gjm11 wrote: post #12

I'm not a fan of the glib "everyone knows AI systems don't really think, they are just stochastic parrots, all they do is regurgitate ideas they've stolen" schtick, but this article is the reverse of that only worse. Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao. The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite t…

There’s a little nagging thought in my head when I hear that some people are helped immensely by AI and others are not. It’s that there is a threshold for intelligence that the AI either impresses you or it does not. I’m sure this threshold will continue to rise

In my experience, people who understand llms better are more impressed. Not impressed like "wow so smart" but impressed like "wow can't believe that just training to predict the next token actually works so amazingly well"

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#29

Post by jw1224 »

gjm11 wrote: post #12

I'm not a fan of the glib "everyone knows AI systems don't really think, they are just stochastic parrots, all they do is regurgitate ideas they've stolen" schtick, but this article is the reverse of that only worse. Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao. The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite t…

> If we […] tried to use these systems to solve the kinds of problems we need Einsteins, Hawkings and Taos for, then we would be in for one miserable disappointment after another

We can literally watch Terence Tao himself vibe coding formal proofs using Claude and o4. He doesn’t seem too disappointed.

https://youtu.be/zZr54G7ec7A?si=GpRZK5W1LDvWyBBw

Re: You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

#30

Post by csallen »

personjerry wrote: post #25
gjm11 wrote: post #12

I'm not a fan of the glib "everyone knows AI systems don't really think, they are just stochastic parrots, all they do is regurgitate ideas they've stolen" schtick, but this article is the reverse of that only worse. Today's AI systems are pretty impressive but they are absolutely not, not even slightly, the equivalent of Einstein + Hawking + Tao. The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite t…

> The reason they get used a lot for tasks along the lines of "rewrite this so it sounds smarter" is that that's what they're best at. I disagree. The reason is that that's what aligns best with what most people are looking for help on. There is a disconnect between reality and the AI product consumer envisioned here. There is no magical enlightened user who's going to unleash their inner potential. How much physics…

This is the right answer.

Usage of products is determined by what people are driven to do. People are driven by their desires and their problems. And most of these are fairly simple and mundane… eating, paying the bills, feeling healthy, connecting with others socially, etc.

"Expending copious amounts of mental energy on difficult work to create scientific breakthroughs that may-or-may-not allow engineers to build things that contribute to the betterment of the human race" is not how most people want to spend their time, even if there are tools available to help them do that.

Post reply on HN