3 ms·
What benefit is there if the machine has unlocked understanding but no human has? What incentives are there for humans to learn and gain such understanding from
by kccqzy 1mo ago
What benefit is there if the machine has unlocked understanding but no human has? What incentives are there for humans to learn and gain such understanding from machines?
- vatsachak 1mo agoBecause it's beautiful. Because you love math for maths sake and not some weird egotistical game
- mswphd 1mo agothe way LLMs write math is not beautiful. it is exactly analogous to the software that LLMs develop is not beautiful. it may achieve impressive end products, but if you like understanding the methods/architecture, looking under the hood is often a field of horrors.
- NoDodgeQuestion 1mo agoYou feel lean4 proof, that you 99.999% chance not understand is beautiful?
- vatsachak 1mo agohttps://cdn.openai.com/pdf/32d9f210-8b73-45e0-91bc-82a30aef8a9a/navier-stokes.pdf https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/32d9f210-8b73-45e0-91bc-82a30aef8...
- kccqzy 1mo agoHow many humans on earth have finished reading this 100+ page PDF and actually appreciate the beauty contained therein (or the lack of beauty)?
- legobmw99 1mo agoIs "loving math for maths sake" just about knowing the answers? I think one can love math for exactly the process and understanding that a several-thousand-line uncommented Lean proof denies. If a deity rearranged the stars to spell out "The Riemann hypothesis is false" for a night, would that be intellectually sufficient?
- vatsachak 1mo agoNo that's not sufficient but that's not what's happening. Why do we believe that we cannot train models which could explain the jargon in more human terms when current LLMs can perfectly explain the most complicated codebases?
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- Toynbeeidea 1mo agoThe same incentive there always was: Because you wanna know. What incentive were you thinking of?
- kccqzy 1mo agoThe usual incentives in academia: publishing papers. Consider the difference between publishing a paper that introduces a novel method to do X, versus publishing a paper that merely interprets Claude’s method to do X. The latter might not even be publishable.
- vatsachak 1mo agoThat means that academia is outdated not that LLM math is bad
- kccqzy 1mo agoOkay so you are saying the old incentive structure is outdated. What is the new incentive structure in the LLM era? What exactly makes people want to understand LLM-produced math?
- vatsachak 1mo agoI actually read through a bunch of LLM slop on the weekends trying to catch white whales I couldn't during my math PhD. The incentive is solving the problem and understanding the solution.