46 ms·
> E.g. humans follow a deductive process to answer questions which they haven't encountered yet. Rarely, actually. More generally humans use all kind of infer
by psychoslave 2y ago
> E.g. humans follow a deductive process to answer questions which they haven't encountered yet.
Rarely, actually.
More generally humans use all kind of inferences where problem at hand is intertwined with all other attention points that is occupying the mental load of the person. Giving a topic full mental attention and finding a path through pure deduction about a circumscribed subject is a rarity, even if you consider only those situations that require any conscious attention at all to perform some action before moving on.
- tadala 2y agoNot within mathematics, where it is the entire sport, and which is the point of contention.
- psychoslave 2y agoIf there is one space where it shines, sure it’s mathematics. But even there, the most notable mathematicians highly rely on some intuitions far before they manage to prove anything, as well as while selecting/creating their conceptual tools to attempt to build the proof, and rarely go to the point of formalizing their points through Coq/Isabelle or even with meticulous paper craft à la Principia Mathematica from Russel and Whitehead.
- calf 2y agoExcept humans correctly believe that a Coq proof is theoretically correct whereas an LLM does not have this meta reasoning ability at all.