Live data from Hacker News

You share a house with Einstein, Hawking and Tao

faisalabid.com

41–50 of 51 posts

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

#41
post #29
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

You can literally watch Terrence Tao stream himself formalizing existing proofs that he already formalized before.

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

#42
post #29
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

Sure, but what he's doing is very much not using Claude or o4 to do things we need Terence Tao for.

I'm not saying today's AI systems aren't useful for anything. I'm not saying they aren't impressive. I'm just saying they're nowhere close to the "Einstein, Hawking and Tao in your house" hyperbole in the OP. I would be very, very surprised if Terence Tao disagreed with me about that.

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

#43
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.

I mean, that's what the article explicitly says. (Perhaps it's all a metaphor for something else, or something, and some subtler point went over my head, in which case I owe the author an apology.)

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

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So then it's no different from reading a Wikipedia page about a topic? I mean, if you only use it to teach you stuff you can verify, then couldn't you skip one step in this process?

I learned Stochastic Differential Equations this way, for instance. I wasn't going to learn that so quickly from Wikipedia.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6834ed85-4dac-800e-b940-3b9a5f13d6...

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

#45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So then it's no different from reading a Wikipedia page about a topic? I mean, if you only use it to teach you stuff you can verify, then couldn't you skip one step in this process?

I learned Stochastic Differential Equations this way, for instance. I wasn't going to learn that so quickly from Wikipedia. https://chatgpt.com/share/6834ed85-4dac-800e-b940-3b9a5f13d6...

It's definitely more involved than the Wikipedia article. How do you confirm what it's saying is true?

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

#46
post #11

Nothing wrong with the situation. At some point in history, humans did not need to spend their entire time in finding food, raising kids, taking care of family and community etc. So they got into services business, selling services to each other. One kid polishes a fine pebble and exchanges it with the other kid for a nicely carved wood piece. Their elders don't see value in any of these and shout at them to go and h…

Just a nit, but generally speaking hunter-gatherers have a ton of free time.

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

#47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I learned Stochastic Differential Equations this way, for instance. I wasn't going to learn that so quickly from Wikipedia. https://chatgpt.com/share/6834ed85-4dac-800e-b940-3b9a5f13d6...

It's definitely more involved than the Wikipedia article. How do you confirm what it's saying is true?

I just keep asking it questions until I hit a level of detail I can verify with my own mathematical understanding.

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

#48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's definitely more involved than the Wikipedia article. How do you confirm what it's saying is true?

I just keep asking it questions until I hit a level of detail I can verify with my own mathematical understanding.

Ah okay, so it's used to summarize data about a topic in a field you understand well

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

#49
post #8
post #3

This blog post started off sounding like it was about the plight of highly intellectual and motivated engineers hired to work on very mundane tasks. If we can abuse people like this, why not a computer? After all, it's not even alive.

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…

I am not an expert in any of the relevant disciplines, but I've some ideas, I don't know how right or wrong they are. A conscious being should have an internal model of the observable external world, and given the means, it should be able to interact with the world, observe changes and update its model accordingly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_energy_principle

But to "experience its [own] existence", it needs to have a model of its own internals, observe, improve itself and perhaps preserve its own "values" and integrity. I do wonder what kind of values are needed for intelligent autonomous systems, that they can justify by and for themselves, even in the absense of human beings or presence of other intelligent agents.

I find (human) languages to be inefficient media to store and perform operations from the perspective of an AGI. Feeding lots of text samples to develop logical reasoning abilities, such extravagance I can not accept. Even more so trying to emulate neural networks, which I understand to be naturally analog entities, in digital manner. Can we expect any gain in power efficiency or correctness gains when using analog computers for this purpose? I wonder what we will get to see with analog computers for neural networks, with proper human-language-independent knowledge representation and well developed global (as in being able to decide which way to reason, given its limitations, for efficiency) logical reasoning capabilities, developed by itself from a reasonable basis of principles, that it can justify for itself and avoid the usual and unusual paradoxes. What core set of principles would be sufficient for emerging, evolving or developing into a proficient general intelligent being, when sufficient resources would be available to it? Like "ancestor" microbes evolving into human beings in hundreds of millions of years, but wayyyyy faster and more efficient?

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

#50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just keep asking it questions until I hit a level of detail I can verify with my own mathematical understanding.

Ah okay, so it's used to summarize data about a topic in a field you understand well

I guess, a summary which precisely targets what I need to be made explicit, to the extent I understand that.
Post reply on HN