4 ms·

I sort of wonder if effectively using AI to solve math problems is a skill in its own right, distinct from traditional mathematical skills. I don’t just mean “p

I sort of wonder if effectively using AI to solve math problems is a skill in its own right, distinct from traditional mathematical skills. I don’t just mean “prompt engineering” either. More so figuring out how to combine agents with other tools and approaches in an effective way.

firesteelrain 21d ago
Agree this is a broad statement for any use of AI for any purpose. Open ended prompts / requests are bound to lead to misleading results, hallucinated responses, waste of tokens, etc
breezybottom 21d ago
You still have to be able to verify the solution to say that it's solved, so I'd say no.
- perching_aix 21d ago
  I'm not sure that makes sense? Having the expertise to verify the completion of a given task is a usually necessary but not sufficient requirement to what they're describing. I don't think they even disagree. You seem to be imagining completely independent areas of competence, but I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what they wrote.
stabbles 21d ago
If it is a skill, it's something that can be learned by both humans and LLMs.
- threethirtytwo 21d ago
  I guess the better question is, can this skill be learned without being an extreme expert in mathematics? Can I be a sort of intelligence highschool student (not incredibly exceptional at all) and have the LLM teach me the required math for a specific problem and guide it towards a solution? I think the answer to this question is becoming, in general, a big yes. LLMs can arrive at a solution via two paths. The first one is via heavy guidance by an adept expert in the domain. The other path is via brute force... multiple agents (the more the faster it can arrive at a solution). The later path is what enables anybody to do this.
empath75 21d ago
IMO, it _currently_ requires a lot of skill because it will frequently take wrong turns and dead ends and needs suggestions and steering to get there. You do need to understand what it is doing at least a little bit and to understand the general landscape of the problem, and to at least have a sense of whether and why the problem is tractable at all.

firesteelrain 21d ago

Agree this is a broad statement for any use of AI for any purpose. Open ended prompts / requests are bound to lead to misleading results, hallucinated responses, waste of tokens, etc

breezybottom 21d ago

You still have to be able to verify the solution to say that it's solved, so I'd say no.

perching_aix 21d ago
I'm not sure that makes sense? Having the expertise to verify the completion of a given task is a usually necessary but not sufficient requirement to what they're describing. I don't think they even disagree. You seem to be imagining completely independent areas of competence, but I don't think that's a reasonable interpretation of what they wrote.

stabbles 21d ago

If it is a skill, it's something that can be learned by both humans and LLMs.

threethirtytwo 21d ago
I guess the better question is, can this skill be learned without being an extreme expert in mathematics? Can I be a sort of intelligence highschool student (not incredibly exceptional at all) and have the LLM teach me the required math for a specific problem and guide it towards a solution? I think the answer to this question is becoming, in general, a big yes. LLMs can arrive at a solution via two paths. The first one is via heavy guidance by an adept expert in the domain. The other path is via brute force... multiple agents (the more the faster it can arrive at a solution). The later path is what enables anybody to do this.

empath75 21d ago

IMO, it _currently_ requires a lot of skill because it will frequently take wrong turns and dead ends and needs suggestions and steering to get there. You do need to understand what it is doing at least a little bit and to understand the general landscape of the problem, and to at least have a sense of whether and why the problem is tractable at all.