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

Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 366 posts

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#341

Post by dyauspitr »

orcasushi wrote: post #318
dyauspitr wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mathematicians should not outsource their work to AI just like programmers should not outsource programming to AI. There is a huge difference between the two. Mathematicians work on discovering fundamental truths of the universe that go into the corpus of human knowledge forever. Programmers create utilities.

I know a PHD in math that claims math is invented by ourselves and not any universal true. So well, depends who you ask. Also some of these programming utilities may outlive some math proof. Time will tell

Of course they are universal truths. We may have made up the rules/abstractions/symbols to represent the underlying but a proof will hold in any part of the universe. Infact, math will hold in any universe. You could change every fundamental physical property of the universe and those proofs will still hold.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#342

Post by fc417fc802 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #341
orcasushi wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a PHD in math that claims math is invented by ourselves and not any universal true. So well, depends who you ask. Also some of these programming utilities may outlive some math proof. Time will tell

Of course they are universal truths. We may have made up the rules/abstractions/symbols to represent the underlying but a proof will hold in any part of the universe. Infact, math will hold in any universe. You could change every fundamental physical property of the universe and those proofs will still hold.

Those are wild claims that you can't possibly prove. They are typically assumed to be the case to the extent that we even think about them but in the end are largely unanswerable philosophical questions.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#343

Post by dyauspitr »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #342
dyauspitr wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course they are universal truths. We may have made up the rules/abstractions/symbols to represent the underlying but a proof will hold in any part of the universe. Infact, math will hold in any universe. You could change every fundamental physical property of the universe and those proofs will still hold.

Those are wild claims that you can't possibly prove. They are typically assumed to be the case to the extent that we even think about them but in the end are largely unanswerable philosophical questions.

It’s not a claim, it’s a pretty self apparent fact. To wrap your head around this, as the simplest example 2+2=4 doesn’t change anywhere or under any different physical law. It’s as universal as you can get. There’s nothing philosophical about this.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#344

Post by fc417fc802 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #343
fc417fc802 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are wild claims that you can't possibly prove. They are typically assumed to be the case to the extent that we even think about them but in the end are largely unanswerable philosophical questions.

It’s not a claim, it’s a pretty self apparent fact. To wrap your head around this, as the simplest example 2+2=4 doesn’t change anywhere or under any different physical law. It’s as universal as you can get. There’s nothing philosophical about this.

It is a claim, and you can't test it. If physical laws varied between galaxies you wouldn't know unless we were able to measure it. So the current bound on physical phenomena is whatever the resolution of our observational data is, coupled with our models that match it.

How are you going to get observational data for a different universe? Does such a thing even exist? What is its nature? You're operating well outside the bounds of human knowledge.

What you are actually saying there is that you can't imagine 2+2 being anything other than 4. That's perfectly reasonable but it's not the same thing.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#345

Post by perching_aix »

drfloyd51 wrote: post #333
perching_aix wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder too, could you maybe actually check your theory?

My sarcasm wasn’t thick enough. L

On the contrary, only your sarcasm was thick, not the substance behind it. Kind of what I'm yapping about if you'd be kind enough to notice.

What you propose makes fine rhetorical sense, and I can assure you it did reach me, it's just that a (very) cursory search yielded me no significant employment rate changes or drastic layoffs in the related sector over the decades. Instead, it suggested that people have been reshuffled to do waste sorting and other related activities rather, and that the field actually grew, directly contradicting your smug, sarcasm-laden, willfully demagogue framing. Traits that are not exactly the hallmark of epistemic rigor to begin with, nor do they further it, even if the given narrative did hold up.

It's so easy to be asinine and make up a story, especially when one feels morally justified in doing so, and considers the base facts & analogy to be "obviously correct". I don't think that setting people up for failure by feeding them correct sounding lies - or sending related discourse into a nosedive in quality just to get in some cheap zingers - would help the cause a whole lot though. Do you?

Put differently, it helps if the example provided actually holds up as an example for the topic discussed. Especially if that example is as dramatic as 80% of a given job disappearing, and the people involved just plain losing their livelihood supposedly.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#346

Post by dyauspitr »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #344
dyauspitr wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not a claim, it’s a pretty self apparent fact. To wrap your head around this, as the simplest example 2+2=4 doesn’t change anywhere or under any different physical law. It’s as universal as you can get. There’s nothing philosophical about this.

It is a claim, and you can't test it. If physical laws varied between galaxies you wouldn't know unless we were able to measure it. So the current bound on physical phenomena is whatever the resolution of our observational data is, coupled with our models that match it. How are you going to get observational data for a different universe? Does such a thing even exist? What is its nature? You're operating well outside…

There is no circumstance where 2+2 does not equal 4. It is a literal fact.

At the most fundamental level, you can only have a discreet or a non-discreet universe. If it’s discreet, there are countable things and 2+2 = 4 is true. In a non-discreet universe there are no countable things, but the universe itself is countable. If the universe were non-discreet and infinite, you could still count the infinities so it’s still true.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#347

Post by fc417fc802 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #346
fc417fc802 wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a claim, and you can't test it. If physical laws varied between galaxies you wouldn't know unless we were able to measure it. So the current bound on physical phenomena is whatever the resolution of our observational data is, coupled with our models that match it. How are you going to get observational data for a different universe? Does such a thing even exist? What is its nature? You're operating well outside…

There is no circumstance where 2+2 does not equal 4. It is a literal fact. At the most fundamental level, you can only have a discreet or a non-discreet universe. If it’s discreet, there are countable things and 2+2 = 4 is true. In a non-discreet universe there are no countable things, but the universe itself is countable. If the universe were non-discreet and infinite, you could still count the infinities so it’s st…

You are making a number of assumptions there seemingly without realizing it even after I explicitly called it out. I'm not sure what to say other than to suggest that there's an entire field, analytic philosophy, concerned with such matters.

You literally can't prove that you aren't a brain in a vat so I have no idea how you expect to make sweeping claims about the fundamental nature of reality. It is certainly convenient and practical to take certain basic assumptions as fact in order to go about higher level tasks but that does not make them so.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#348

Post by dyauspitr »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #347
dyauspitr wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no circumstance where 2+2 does not equal 4. It is a literal fact. At the most fundamental level, you can only have a discreet or a non-discreet universe. If it’s discreet, there are countable things and 2+2 = 4 is true. In a non-discreet universe there are no countable things, but the universe itself is countable. If the universe were non-discreet and infinite, you could still count the infinities so it’s st…

You are making a number of assumptions there seemingly without realizing it even after I explicitly called it out. I'm not sure what to say other than to suggest that there's an entire field, analytic philosophy, concerned with such matters. You literally can't prove that you aren't a brain in a vat so I have no idea how you expect to make sweeping claims about the fundamental nature of reality. It is certainly conve…

Even if you were a brain in a vat this would be true. Even if the simulation disallowed the number four or groups of four it would still be true. How are you not getting this? What does philosophy have to do with anything. Pretty much everything in this universe is debatable and can be questioned, except this. Anyways I’m dropping out of this. You don’t come back with anything except a sense of wonder and a wide eyed gaze.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#349

Post by fc417fc802 »

dyauspitr wrote: post #348
fc417fc802 wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a number of assumptions there seemingly without realizing it even after I explicitly called it out. I'm not sure what to say other than to suggest that there's an entire field, analytic philosophy, concerned with such matters. You literally can't prove that you aren't a brain in a vat so I have no idea how you expect to make sweeping claims about the fundamental nature of reality. It is certainly conve…

Even if you were a brain in a vat this would be true. Even if the simulation disallowed the number four or groups of four it would still be true. How are you not getting this? What does philosophy have to do with anything. Pretty much everything in this universe is debatable and can be questioned, except this. Anyways I’m dropping out of this. You don’t come back with anything except a sense of wonder and a wide eyed…

Noticeably you still have yet to defend any of these wild claims you're making. You've now resorted to personal attacks rather than engage with what I wrote.

If you are so certain of your claim then why are you seemingly incapable of defending it using logic and reason?

> What does philosophy have to do with anything.

If you took the time to look up the field of analytic philosophy to see what it's about, particularly with regards to metaphysics, that would presumably answer your question. There are literally treatise on the underlying nature of numbers and mathematical concepts (among other things) and you will find that there are multiple competing views on the matter.

When someone says "hey it seems like you're unaware of thing" and you think "WTF even is that" it is at that point generally a good idea to think to yourself "hey maybe there's something important that I don't know here" and then at least perform a topical check of the thing.

Re: Mathematicians issue warning as AI rapidly gains ground

#350

Post by musicale »

dyauspitr wrote: post #343
fc417fc802 wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are wild claims that you can't possibly prove. They are typically assumed to be the case to the extent that we even think about them but in the end are largely unanswerable philosophical questions.

It’s not a claim, it’s a pretty self apparent fact. To wrap your head around this, as the simplest example 2+2=4 doesn’t change anywhere or under any different physical law. It’s as universal as you can get. There’s nothing philosophical about this.

> 2+2=4 doesn’t change anywhere or under any different physical law.

How about python3:

   >>> input() + input()
   2
   2
   '22'
or if you insist:

    >>> .2 + .2 + .2 == .6
    False
Post reply on HN