4 ms·
Huh. I thought _understanding universe_ would require research in quantum mechanics, string theory, astrophysics… you know - physics. Not _AI_.
by kklisura 3y ago
Huh. I thought _understanding universe_ would require research in quantum mechanics, string theory, astrophysics… you know - physics. Not _AI_.
- cma 3y agoAI may start contributing new math and science fairly soon.
- kklisura 3y agoSure, but are we at the point where science is now just a "data problem", as in: we have a lot of data we can't interpret, so we need AI help there? I honestly don't know, but would guess that that's not the case.
- jimlongton 3y agoThe people who could instruct such AI and evaluate its outputs would be domain experts. Without them how would you even start to approach those problems?
- cma 3y agoHave you looked at the papers and C.V.s of the people on the front page of x.ai? Many have already worked on machine guided proofs and I see people with pure math and physics backgrounds.
- pms 3y agoFormal verification research is conducted since 30+ years and LLMs aren't really good at math and logic, so based on what grounds can we expect a breakthrough in machine guided proofs anytime soon?
- cma 3y agoVarious recent math olympiad results from deep mind and openai. I think we'll see something analogous to the classification of the finite simple groups collaboration, but where some core researchers will do several proofs in the area to show it the kinds of things needed and it can help fill in others. Things where there is a large volume of similar work to be done.
- seydor 3y agoIf the AI understands the universe, humans dont have to
- pms 3y agoSo how will we know that it did?
- friend_and_foe 3y agoI think understanding information, cognition, computation, whether an LLM has the emergent property of understanding, all give us some great insight into the nature of the universe that can be applied elsewhere as well.