4 ms·
I don’t think they make a coherent argument here? This seems to hinge on some argument that because AI doesn’t properly explain its breakthroughs, therefore the
by seizethecheese 21d ago
I don’t think they make a coherent argument here? This seems to hinge on some argument that because AI doesn’t properly explain its breakthroughs, therefore the breakthroughs are less fertile for human understanding? This makes no sense. Why wouldn’t these under-explained breakthroughs be extremely fertile soil for explanations?
Imagine time traveling back in time and offering Leibniz a packet of proofs from the intervening years, but with the caveat that there would be no explanations. Would he say no?
- geraneum 21d ago> Would he say no? And that’s the issue the article is trying to explain.
- seizethecheese 21d agoMy thought experiment was trying to extract the issue from the zeitgeist around AI, so not really
- geraneum 21d agoThere’s answer for you there if you’re willing to see it, whether you agree with it or not. So there’s that.
- atomicthumbs 21d agoBecause the fertile soil comes from the process of reaching the breakthrough. This should be fairly obvious.
- seizethecheese 21d agoI don’t think it’s obvious. In my Leibniz example, mathematical understanding surely would have accelerated right?