Comment by tzumaoli

9 hours ago

Is this the scenario described in Ted Chiang's short story https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Human_Science where scientists are "catching crumbs from the table" trying to decipher the results generated by superhuman intelligence?

It's still an optimistic scenario. Artificial superintelligence may develop hypermathematics of a kind that never will be accesible to human mind, enhanced or not. One can't teach geometry to ants even if you put them on a Moebius strip.

It would be more like Lem's novel where it completely disappears from the human horizon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_XIV

  • Which is why if humanity had empathy, it would be working on how to make smarter ants, so that they can learn more advanced geometry.

  • What’s optimistic or non-optimistic specifically about the machine having a system of mathematics beyond our comprehension within it? Why should we care about that in itself?

    • In the first case, we'd still have a chance to take a glance at the frontier of discovery (even if ordinary human mathematicians had to spent years translating what metahumans achieved).

      In the second case all human-level maths would be solved and what lies beyond would be always out of our scope.