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

Position: LLMs Can't Jump

openreview.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 233 posts

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#71

Post by teleforce »

quantum_mcts wrote: post #30

The popular retelling of how Einstein created Special Relativity to "Resolve the contradictions of Michelson-Morly experiments" is very reductive to the history of the question. The epitome is the quote from the paper: > From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz trans- formation ... If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"? The groundwork for Special Relativity was the study of electrodynamics and symme…

Einstein seems to be so conveniently dismissive that he knew about the seminal Michelson-Morley experiments but he probably knew about it too well [1].

Einstein is not the first great scientist who are in denial of other important prior contributions, and he also not the last one. Newton also probably knew too well about Al-Haytham (Alhazen), arguably the father of modern science, and his breakthrough experiments but never directly cited Alhazen's works in his seminal books on Optics.

[1] Millikan, Einstein, and the Birth of Relativity (4 letters):

https://www.aps.org/archives/publications/apsnews/200403/let...

"Abraham Pais, who knew Einstein well and wrote his scientific biography, was certain that Einstein did know about Michelson's experiment before 1905. He points out that Einstein was over seventy and in poor health when he spoke to Shankland; at the first interview he probably did not remember that Michelson's experiment is discussed in Lorentz's 1895 monograph, the famous "Versuch", which Einstein had definitely read before 1905."

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#72

Post by jimbo808 »

quantum_mcts wrote: post #30

The popular retelling of how Einstein created Special Relativity to "Resolve the contradictions of Michelson-Morly experiments" is very reductive to the history of the question. The epitome is the quote from the paper: > From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz trans- formation ... If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"? The groundwork for Special Relativity was the study of electrodynamics and symme…

I get really tired of Einstein being portrayed as if he’s the greatest scientist who ever lived, when he doesn’t even belong in that conversation. If Einstein never existed, the fields he was in were already moving strongly in the directions of his conclusions. If Maxwell or Newton had never existed, the world today would be quite different.

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#73

Post by kergonath »

eru wrote: post #63
quantum_mcts wrote: post #30

The popular retelling of how Einstein created Special Relativity to "Resolve the contradictions of Michelson-Morly experiments" is very reductive to the history of the question. The epitome is the quote from the paper: > From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz trans- formation ... If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"? The groundwork for Special Relativity was the study of electrodynamics and symme…

I agree with you in general. However: > If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"? You can (re-) derive a lot of existing stuff.

> You can (re-) derive a lot of existing stuff.

Einstein was aware of Lorentz and the transform. He was aware of Poincaré as well. He knew the state of the art for his time.

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#74

Post by [deleted] »

quantum_mcts wrote: post #30

The popular retelling of how Einstein created Special Relativity to "Resolve the contradictions of Michelson-Morly experiments" is very reductive to the history of the question. The epitome is the quote from the paper: > From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz trans- formation ... If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"? The groundwork for Special Relativity was the study of electrodynamics and symme…

[deleted]

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#75

Post by bryanrasmussen »

teleforce wrote: post #71
quantum_mcts wrote: post #30

The popular retelling of how Einstein created Special Relativity to "Resolve the contradictions of Michelson-Morly experiments" is very reductive to the history of the question. The epitome is the quote from the paper: > From the two postulates, Einstein derived the Lorentz trans- formation ... If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"? The groundwork for Special Relativity was the study of electrodynamics and symme…

Einstein seems to be so conveniently dismissive that he knew about the seminal Michelson-Morley experiments but he probably knew about it too well [1]. Einstein is not the first great scientist who are in denial of other important prior contributions, and he also not the last one. Newton also probably knew too well about Al-Haytham (Alhazen), arguably the father of modern science, and his breakthrough experiments but…

Was the ethical requirement to discuss and acknowledge predecessors work as developed in Newton's time as in our own? I would naturally expect not because it would seem to me to be the kind of thing that develops over time, but I could be wrong as I am not a historian of science.

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#76

Post by prabhanjana_c »

juleiie wrote: post #39

LLMs can’t but humans supplied with data and reasoning from an LLM can make novel jumps without absolute prior knowledge, or at least with reduced need for years of knowledge. And then such jump can be verified by a machine so human kind of plugs the intelligence gap. That’s pretty exciting. I always liked to provocatively call LLM „the new calculator”. Calculator for language. We are so focused on creating a standal…

Calculator for language, is a nice insight. I visualize generally as LLM's as big mathematical expression that produce next word.

But then , one difference I found on LLM's is on scaling laws, where at some point, it have interesting emerging properties, that nobody thought would be possible now being possible.

Tools: Though It is a tool, but powerfull tool that is automating existing manually done jobs, large scale. Adapting to new roles where we definite goals, needs and motives judging of AI output, at large level is an issue. And humans are used to day to day repeating job, doing same thing repeatedly. Now the AI is taking over that. I see that is a challenge.

Also I see we are moving to creative world, where we will spend more time on creating something really new, leaving mechanized parts to AI.

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#77

Post by kdavis »

The article seems like an interesting Gedankenexperiment. However, I think it overrotates on the GR analogy.

For example "..ARC captures the logical leap, it misses the manipulative component—the physical sensation and embodied simulation..." makes lots of assumptions on how such a discovery must occur, e.g. through "physical sensation and embodied simulation". Results matter, not the path there.

For example, quantization of energy, at the core of QM, wasn't discovered through "physical sensation and embodied simulation" at all. Planck simply found that if energy is quantized, then one obtained the observed black-body radiation spectrum. There was no "physical sensation and embodied simulation".

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#78

Post by daun_gee »

yomismoaqui wrote: post #61

Why everybody is obsessed with replacing humans with LLMs when it seems like the most profitable use cases (like coding agents) rely on enhancing human capabilities? Until LLMs have some 0% error humans will have to be in the loop (even if they only serve to take responsibility of the process).

[dead]

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#79

Post by teleforce »

bryanrasmussen wrote: post #75
teleforce wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Einstein seems to be so conveniently dismissive that he knew about the seminal Michelson-Morley experiments but he probably knew about it too well [1]. Einstein is not the first great scientist who are in denial of other important prior contributions, and he also not the last one. Newton also probably knew too well about Al-Haytham (Alhazen), arguably the father of modern science, and his breakthrough experiments but…

Was the ethical requirement to discuss and acknowledge predecessors work as developed in Newton's time as in our own? I would naturally expect not because it would seem to me to be the kind of thing that develops over time, but I could be wrong as I am not a historian of science.

It's a not a requirement, it's just a natural to do as a research scientist and a student of knowledge to acknowledge prior contributions if you knew it. The same is true when you are at the time of Aristotle.

Re: Position: LLMs Can't Jump

#80

Post by eru »

kergonath wrote: post #73
eru wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you in general. However: > If Einstein derived them, who is "Lorentz"? You can (re-) derive a lot of existing stuff.

> You can (re-) derive a lot of existing stuff. Einstein was aware of Lorentz and the transform. He was aware of Poincaré as well. He knew the state of the art for his time.

Re-deriving the start of the art cleanly with fewer postulates is good!
Post reply on HN