Comment by kccqzy
13 hours 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?
13 hours 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?
Because it's beautiful. Because you love math for maths sake and not some weird egotistical game
Is "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?
No 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?
1 reply →
the 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.
You feel lean4 proof, that you 99.999% chance not understand is beautiful?
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/32d9f210-8b73-45e0-91bc-82a30aef8...
1 reply →
The same incentive there always was: Because you wanna know. What incentive were you thinking of?
The 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.
That means that academia is outdated not that LLM math is bad
4 replies →