Comment by watwut
1 day ago
It does not imply that. He is talking about how people do math. Intuition is what you use when deciding what to try and how to think about things.
Proof is the rigorous outcome.
LLM running probabilistic loop is different kind of process.
The parent comment literally said "You cannot do proof without intuition".
Therefore, according to that logic, an entity producing proofs must have intuition.
Edit to add: the parent commenter has now confirmed my interpretation of their statement.
Your unstated major premise here is that their intent was to make a universal statement about how proofs work and not just talking to humans about how they teach humans.
That premise seems unlikely to be correct.
Why? The entire subject of conversation is triggered by things which are not humans producing proofs.
If it's possible for a machine to produce a proof without intuition then clearly a human could also do it too. (And in fact I'd argue I've seen many people like that, simply very good at pattern matching over memorised items).
3 replies →