31–40 of 68 posts
We can define a Dyson Sphere in math. We cannot build one. AI outputting axiomatically valid syntax isn't going to be all that useful. It's possible to generate all axiomatically correct math with a for loop until the machine OOMs Physics is not math and math is not physics.
Last week I got together with my math alumni friend. We cracked some beers, we chatted with voice mode ChatGPT and toyed around with Collatz Conjecture and we sent some prompt to a coding agent to build visualizations and simulation. It was a lot of fun directing these agents while we bounced off ideas and the models could explore them. I think with the right problem and the right agentic loop it’s clear to me improv…
Mathematics seems like the ideal candidate for AIs to achieve absurd results. It's a purely abstract grammar with true auto-verifiability. Even SWE has the requirement of interacting with real physical things. In math there's no external feedback required, you're solely bounded by the rate and quality of token generation.
This misses the mark on at least two accounts: 1. Proofs without human understanding have less value for mathematicians 2. At least for now, interestingness depends on human judgment. It is subjective and not as verifiable.
I wonder when AI will be able to discern the passage of time
Altman has estimated one year until ChatGPT is capable of measuring time passed. https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/chatgpt/articles/chatgpt-fails-mis...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This misses the mark on at least two accounts: 1. Proofs without human understanding have less value for mathematicians 2. At least for now, interestingness depends on human judgment. It is subjective and not as verifiable.
Every new mathematician that comes along doesn’t know everything that has come before him. He needs to go learn all the math that his predecessors did. I don’t see how an LLM coming up with these proofs changes that.
We can define a Dyson Sphere in math. We cannot build one. AI outputting axiomatically valid syntax isn't going to be all that useful. It's possible to generate all axiomatically correct math with a for loop until the machine OOMs Physics is not math and math is not physics.
You just failed the Turing test.
We can define a Dyson Sphere in math. We cannot build one. AI outputting axiomatically valid syntax isn't going to be all that useful. It's possible to generate all axiomatically correct math with a for loop until the machine OOMs Physics is not math and math is not physics.
You just failed the Turing test.
Mathematics seems like the ideal candidate for AIs to achieve absurd results. It's a purely abstract grammar with true auto-verifiability. Even SWE has the requirement of interacting with real physical things. In math there's no external feedback required, you're solely bounded by the rate and quality of token generation.