4 ms·

Here's a thought experiment: if modern machine learning systems existed in the early 20th century, would they have been able to produce an equivalent to the the

by imiric 11mo ago

Here's a thought experiment: if modern machine learning systems existed in the early 20th century, would they have been able to produce an equivalent to the theory of relativity? How about advance our understanding of the universe? Teach us about flight dynamics and take us into space? Invent the Turing machine, Von Neumann architecture, transistors? If yes, why aren't we seeing glimpses of such genius today? If we've truly invented artificial intelligence, and on our way to super and general intelligence, why aren't we seeing breakthroughs in all fields of science? Why are state of the art applications of this technology based on pattern recognition and applied statistics? Can we explain this by saying that we're only a few years into it, and that it's too early to expect fundamental breakthroughs? And that by 2027, or 2030, or surely by 2040, all of these things will suddenly materialize? I have my doubts.

tanseydavid 11mo ago
How about "Protein Folding"?
- imiric 11mo ago
  A great use case for pattern recognition.
famouswaffles 11mo ago
>Here's a thought experiment: if modern machine learning systems existed in the early 20th century, would they have been able to produce an equivalent to the theory of relativity? How about advance our understanding of the universe? Teach us about flight dynamics and take us into space? Invent the Turing machine, Von Neumann architecture, transistors? Only a small percentage of humanity are/were capable of doing any of these. And they tend to be the best of the best in their respective fields. >If yes, why aren't we seeing glimpses of such genius today? Again, most humans can't actually do any of the things you just listed. Only our most intelligent can. LLMs are great, but they're not (yet?) as capable as our best and brightest (and in many ways, lag behind the average human) in most respects, so why would you expect such genius now ?
- beeflet 11mo ago
  Were they the best of the best? or were they just at the right place and time to be exposed to a novel idea? I am skeptical of this claim that you need a 140IQ to make scientific breakthroughs, because you don't need a 140IQ to understand special relativity. It is a matter of motivation and exposure to new information. The vast majority of the population doesn't benefit from working in some niche field of physics in the first place. Perhaps LLMs will never be at the right place and the right time because they are only trained on ideas that already exist.
  - famouswaffles 11mo ago
    >Were they the best of the best? or were they just at the right place and time to be exposed to a novel idea? It's not an "or" but an "and". Being at the right place and time is a necessary precondition, but it's not sufficient. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants like Kepler and Galileo, and Einstein built upon the work of Maxwell and Lorentz. The key question is, why did they see the next step when so many of their brilliant contemporaries, who had the exact same information and were in similar positions, did not? That's what separates the exceptional from the rest. >I am skeptical of this claim that you need a 140IQ to make scientific breakthroughs, because you don't need a 140IQ to understand special relativity. There is a pretty massive gap between understanding a revolutionary idea and originating it. It's the difference between being the first person to summit Everest without a map, and a tourist who takes a helicopter to the top to enjoy the view. One requires genius and immense effort; the other requires following instructions. Today, we have a century of explanations, analogies, and refined mathematics that make relativity understandable. Einstein had none of that.
    - Kim_Bruning 11mo ago
      It's entirely plausible that sometimes one genius sees the answer all alone -I'm sure it happens sometimes- but it's also definitely a common theme that many people/ a subset of society as a whole may start having similar ideas all around the same time. In many cases where a breakthrough is attributed to one person, if you look more closely you'll often see some sort of team effort or societal ground swell.

by imiric 11mo ago

tanseydavid 11mo ago

How about "Protein Folding"?

imiric 11mo ago
A great use case for pattern recognition.

famouswaffles 11mo ago

>Here's a thought experiment: if modern machine learning systems existed in the early 20th century, would they have been able to produce an equivalent to the theory of relativity? How about advance our understanding of the universe? Teach us about flight dynamics and take us into space? Invent the Turing machine, Von Neumann architecture, transistors? Only a small percentage of humanity are/were capable of doing any of these. And they tend to be the best of the best in their respective fields. >If yes, why aren't we seeing glimpses of such genius today? Again, most humans can't actually do any of the things you just listed. Only our most intelligent can. LLMs are great, but they're not (yet?) as capable as our best and brightest (and in many ways, lag behind the average human) in most respects, so why would you expect such genius now ?

beeflet 11mo ago
Were they the best of the best? or were they just at the right place and time to be exposed to a novel idea? I am skeptical of this claim that you need a 140IQ to make scientific breakthroughs, because you don't need a 140IQ to understand special relativity. It is a matter of motivation and exposure to new information. The vast majority of the population doesn't benefit from working in some niche field of physics in the first place. Perhaps LLMs will never be at the right place and the right time because they are only trained on ideas that already exist.
- famouswaffles 11mo ago
  >Were they the best of the best? or were they just at the right place and time to be exposed to a novel idea? It's not an "or" but an "and". Being at the right place and time is a necessary precondition, but it's not sufficient. Newton stood on the shoulders of giants like Kepler and Galileo, and Einstein built upon the work of Maxwell and Lorentz. The key question is, why did they see the next step when so many of their brilliant contemporaries, who had the exact same information and were in similar positions, did not? That's what separates the exceptional from the rest. >I am skeptical of this claim that you need a 140IQ to make scientific breakthroughs, because you don't need a 140IQ to understand special relativity. There is a pretty massive gap between understanding a revolutionary idea and originating it. It's the difference between being the first person to summit Everest without a map, and a tourist who takes a helicopter to the top to enjoy the view. One requires genius and immense effort; the other requires following instructions. Today, we have a century of explanations, analogies, and refined mathematics that make relativity understandable. Einstein had none of that.
  - Kim_Bruning 11mo ago
    It's entirely plausible that sometimes one genius sees the answer all alone -I'm sure it happens sometimes- but it's also definitely a common theme that many people/ a subset of society as a whole may start having similar ideas all around the same time. In many cases where a breakthrough is attributed to one person, if you look more closely you'll often see some sort of team effort or societal ground swell.