Thread

1. aogaili · 1790086544 · focus · HN ↗

   If the problem was solved by anyone before or if a similar problem has been solved, then LLMs seem to be able to solve them which is an astonishing piece of technology.

   I'm personally not sure if it can come with original thinking and techniques to solve completely novel problems. For that, some imagination and thinking outside the box are required, and I doubt the current architecture can do any of this.

   1. mitthrowaway2 · 1790086708 · focus · HN ↗

      What's an example of a completely novel problem?

      1. aogaili · 1790087258 · focus · HN ↗

         I don't know..I doubt for example it can come up with special relatively if it has knowledge up until 1905.

         But I think that is what makes it so good at coding, because coding and building software in general has a lot of repeated problems in different context. Same thing for human lives, many think their story or situation are unique, but reality is that the shape of human life has been repeated many many times.

         I'd say novel math or scientific theories..let us say we send a robot to space, and we ask to build a colony. A lot of the challenges this robot will face will be novel, it could use inspirations of what humans did on earth, but it might get stuck when things don't work as expected and training data has nothing to build on..but then again we might teach it how to run experiments etc, which would result in data that it can use..but some of those experiments might require imagination or breakthrough in understanding..my guess is that it will get stuck there...

         1. gus_massa · 1790088558 · focus · HN ↗

            The Lorentz transformations were pretty close to special relativity <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lorentz_transformation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Lorentz_transformation I don&#x27;t claim that I could have discover it, but in a parallel universe without Einstein I expect it to be discovered, perhaps 10 years later, but there were a lot of breadcrumbs in 1904.

            General relativity is harder, but Poincare was somewhat oriented in the right direction. Perhaps AI can discover the final step.

            Quantum mechanics is harder. You need like 25 years and a few unintuitive leaps to discover it. I guess it&#x27;s too hard for AI in 2026, but remember to check again in 2027.

            1. Kotlopou · 1790089373 · focus · HN ↗

               David Hilbert presented the field equations of general relativity within a few weeks of Einstein, so if anything GR was more sure to appear than SR, which took years for others to even notice (Einstein became famous only after the 1919 experiment that confirmed GR). Pertinently to the recent Navier-Stokes drama, there was very little controversy between the two and they both admitted that the other got some aspect better.

               <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;General_relativity_priority_dispute" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;General_relativity_priority_di...

               1. [deleted] · 1790103119 · focus · HN ↗

                  [deleted]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.