Comment by accurrent
1 day ago
One thing that concerns me from all this is "understanding" is very important to human progress. The fact it took 400 years to crack Fermat's theorem resulted in a lot of "Side Quests". These side quests helped grow other fields (for instance elliptical cryptography). Im concerned with AI that we will loose these side quests.
True.
Having to ask the village elder about how to do things meant learning various other incidental lessons. It was reduced when books started to become available.
Having to search in the library also often lead to serendipitously seeing a book on the next shelf and falling in love with a topic you didn't even know about otherwise. Or you had a chat with a librarian asking for advice which books to look in for a topic. Google search eliminated that. With Google search and reading websites, you still had to read or skim the page and may see some other info or click to read the author's About page. Now with AI we get straight to the answer.
Don't worry, in its final reply the agent will always present one or two things "worth flagging" to keep you engaged
I do neither maths nor science with AI but in my experience most models are perfectly willing to burn tokens on a ton of sidequests at the earliest opportunity.
Yeah but do you read through and find if one of those side quests is useful?
They're often directly applicable: minor bugs, inconsistencies, missing tests, commonly also stuff I already now (like some infra config details).
1 reply →
Yes, why not?
We'll get innovations in AI as a side effect.