4 ms·

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

• kergonath 3mo ago
  > 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.
  • eru 3mo ago
    Re-deriving the start of the art cleanly with fewer postulates is good!
    • oliculipolicula 3mo ago
      And so I'm skeptical of TFA's claim that "creativity _isn't [just]_ compression" Imho there's also a clean argument against the existence of LLM-understanding: chatbots have been unable to summarize to experts (see my reply to you in the other thread) their own findings. Even after prolonged interrogation. They were unable to _compress_ their own findings. Thus they might not actually understand what they have actually done. (They might barely pass an oral thesis defense) (One may object-- that proofs aren't data that can be "compressed". But then doesn't the process of abduction generalise the very idea of data? to.. ?)
      • eru 3mo ago
        I'm not sure, many chat bots summarise just fine as far as I can tell, on subjects I know a lot about.
        • oliculipolicula 3mo ago
          I observe this too. It's just on the breakthroughs chatbots independently achieved , ie stuff not in the training data..? Note that there are some differences between the different breakthroughs. The ones that humans were close to solving already were better explained imho