4 ms·

> Can AI invent calculus from first principles? The thing is, most people can't. In fact, if you reinvented calculus yourselves, you should be very proud of yo

> Can AI invent calculus from first principles? The thing is, most people can't. In fact, if you reinvented calculus yourselves, you should be very proud of your mathematical ability.

xlii 4y ago
I believe AI is plural here and relates to general existing population. It’s not like asking if Stable Diffusion or ChatGPT can do it. Maybe there is specialized commercial AI that aren’t so widely known. There exist right now people with low levels of physical and mental capabilities that current state of AI knowledge surpasses it by miles. We don’t go around saying “AI is better than humans”, even though - technically - it can be in some selected cases.
Closi 4y ago
Ha, yes. AGI-Hard also needs to be contrasted against Human-Hard, which is done in most of the article, but equally we probably get to a place of saying "Hard things are Hard". Another example is that the article says "It would be hard for an AI to compose this image as it has lots of different elements/emotions" - but see the Chat-GPT example below: > Me: Can you generate a prompt for an AI to generate an interesting image? > GPT3: Sure! Here is a prompt for an AI to generate an interesting image: "Create a surreal scene featuring a giant, humanoid robot standing on a desolate, alien planet, with a small group of humans huddled fearfully at its feet. The robot should have a sleek, futuristic design, and its glowing red eyes should convey a sense of intelligence and power. In the background, there should be a faint hint of a cityscape, suggesting that the robot has traveled far from its home world. Use bold colors and contrasting lighting to create a sense of drama and tension in the scene. I can then pipe this into Dall-E 2. Sure, it's not GPT3 drawing the image, and Dall-E 2 might struggle to draw that, but most humans would struggle to draw that too as drawing is hard. Hard things are sometimes hard.
miguelrochefort 4y ago
I would be surprised if we did not already have AIs that could invent calculus from first principles. LLMs solve natural langage and common sense, which are not necessary for discovering calculus.
- mannykannot 4y ago
  LLMs have not 'solved' either language or common sense. They will unknowingly and quite blatantly contradict themselves, for instance.
  - kordlessagain 4y ago
    That's only because memories haven't been fully developed for AI, yet. Most LLM examples don't know what they said in response to input from yesterday, much less from 5 minutes ago. Additionally, without a construct, like a body, in which to store these memories, AGI will continue to disappoint those who do.
    - mannykannot 4y ago
      You can propose the premise of your first paragraph, but it is not an established fact. As ChatGPT can contradict itself within a single reply, I doubt that this is the only issue.
      - kordlessagain 4y ago
        I believe our common desires to establish what is and what is not factual get in the way of innovation. Talking about something isn't going to solve the problem. Doing, might: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.06009.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.06009.pdf

> Can AI invent calculus from first principles? The thing is, most people can't. In fact, if you reinvented calculus yourselves, you should be very proud of your mathematical ability.

xlii 4y ago

I believe AI is plural here and relates to general existing population. It’s not like asking if Stable Diffusion or ChatGPT can do it. Maybe there is specialized commercial AI that aren’t so widely known. There exist right now people with low levels of physical and mental capabilities that current state of AI knowledge surpasses it by miles. We don’t go around saying “AI is better than humans”, even though - technically - it can be in some selected cases.

Closi 4y ago

Ha, yes. AGI-Hard also needs to be contrasted against Human-Hard, which is done in most of the article, but equally we probably get to a place of saying "Hard things are Hard". Another example is that the article says "It would be hard for an AI to compose this image as it has lots of different elements/emotions" - but see the Chat-GPT example below: > Me: Can you generate a prompt for an AI to generate an interesting image? > GPT3: Sure! Here is a prompt for an AI to generate an interesting image: "Create a surreal scene featuring a giant, humanoid robot standing on a desolate, alien planet, with a small group of humans huddled fearfully at its feet. The robot should have a sleek, futuristic design, and its glowing red eyes should convey a sense of intelligence and power. In the background, there should be a faint hint of a cityscape, suggesting that the robot has traveled far from its home world. Use bold colors and contrasting lighting to create a sense of drama and tension in the scene. I can then pipe this into Dall-E 2. Sure, it's not GPT3 drawing the image, and Dall-E 2 might struggle to draw that, but most humans would struggle to draw that too as drawing is hard. Hard things are sometimes hard.

miguelrochefort 4y ago

I would be surprised if we did not already have AIs that could invent calculus from first principles. LLMs solve natural langage and common sense, which are not necessary for discovering calculus.

mannykannot 4y ago
LLMs have not 'solved' either language or common sense. They will unknowingly and quite blatantly contradict themselves, for instance.
- kordlessagain 4y ago
  That's only because memories haven't been fully developed for AI, yet. Most LLM examples don't know what they said in response to input from yesterday, much less from 5 minutes ago. Additionally, without a construct, like a body, in which to store these memories, AGI will continue to disappoint those who do.
  - mannykannot 4y ago
    You can propose the premise of your first paragraph, but it is not an established fact. As ChatGPT can contradict itself within a single reply, I doubt that this is the only issue.
    - kordlessagain 4y ago
      I believe our common desires to establish what is and what is not factual get in the way of innovation. Talking about something isn't going to solve the problem. Doing, might: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.06009.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.06009.pdf