Science is a little bit like going on a hike. You've heard there's some interesting waterfall, some beautiful waterfall out there. So, you decide to go hike with some friends to find it, but you need to make a map. You get lost a little bit, but maybe while getting lost, you discover something else which is interesting, and you make a note of it. On the way to to this waterfall, you find an even more spectacular waterfall in the distance. you can't get there yet, but maybe some future hiker will figure out a way to get there, too. And so there's there's a whole process to get to your goal, which is also very valuable. But these tools, these AI tools, they can be like helicopters that will just fly you directly to this waterfall and you can see it and then you fly back, but you learn nothing about how to get there. You may not see any other interesting phenomena than the specific thing that you asked for. And so even though technically you achieve your goal much more efficiently, there may be something that is lost.
Tao has been shilling AI math and Lean for years. And no he pretends he has never done it. Absolutely inhuman monster.
This argument is stupid. There's absolutely no reason to think that the limits of human cognition have any meaning on the spectrum of how complex maths can get. Like you might be able to teach a monkey to count, but you couldn't get it to do calculus. Similarly there will be more levels of incomprehensible abstraction above what we know now.it reminds me of Gödels Incompleteness actually, in that there are truths that exist which cannot be navigated to using the rules of a particular system. That doesn't make them less true. If the machines are already solving stuff right on the limit of what humans can comprehend, then it stands to reason that they will be solving things at levels of abstraction that make utterly no sense to humans.Mathsfags are just seething because their field is the most "exclusive" one and they don't get to sound smart anymore.
>>17076297>Like you might be able to teach a monkey to count, but you couldn't get it to do calculus.Did somebody try it seriously? How far can the ape go in math?Maybe we can come up with a training regimen, like how the LLMs are being trained, and after years the monke can prove theorems and shiet?
>>17076297I love how lots of posters try to feel smart by pretending that because the AI can now do math, that the mathfags weren't absolutely pwning them, and still pwn them. humans may be cucked, but some of you guys just show how gigacucked you are
>>17076301Well, monkey/ape abilities are on a spectrum. You might be able to find a type that can do some maths.
>>17076208This creature exhibits every single trait I hate about the Chinese. In this case it's dishonesty.
>>17076208Yeah
>>17076216Yeah his behaviour is very curious indeed. He was one of the biggest AI dicklickers just 12 months ago. Along with his uhhhhh "daughter"....? Very interesting indeed.
>>17076208true
>>17077877nah it's pretty normal. I know many softdevs who loved sci-fi AI shit, before LLMs started effecting their bottom line. It's not just about money but also self-worth and identity.
