> Before approving construction, I would want communities of humans to understand why the design works and what justifies confidence in its safety. I would hope that we all would.
Until very recently, I pored over every single line of code Claude generated with razor sharp scrutiny. I would usually catch issues with every response. I'm catching fewer problems these days. Maybe the model is just getting better, and maybe I'm being less careful while under pressure to ship more and more often. But model capability is obviously growing. Even back in March, you could tell it "give me a function that adds two numbers" and you could be 100% confident that it would write the correct function. There was almost no point in looking at the code. Since then, the complexity floor of problems in the category "this is so simple that the model couldn't possibly get it wrong" is rising, and with it, my cognitive surrender to the model is increasing too. Why check it? It's obviously going to be correct.
If AI designs a terawatt fusion plant, then of course we're going to meticulously pore over every detail to ensure safety, reliability, efficiency, whatever. If we find no flaws in the design whatsoever, will we be less careful about the second one? The third one? What about the ten thousandth one? Will "a nuclear fusion plant" become something that models couldn't possibly get wrong?
Terence Tao is arguing that the human involvement in research is crucial, but doesn't convincingly justify why, in my opinion. He says that "human agency is a value of fundamental importance" and that we will need to build "thriving human communities that can understand [AI ideas] together" - not for the sake of correctness, which AI may surpass us on, but for, I guess, the possibility of reclaiming human meaning and purpose. I don't disagree with this at all, but it's not an argument, it's a statement of values. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that if AI does surpass humans, it will become the economically dominant strategy to not verify them and not double check them, but to just do whatever they say. This seems like a great way to raise p(doom). But as the models get better and better, and as I'm scrutinizing Claude's output less and less... I just hope that there are more Terence Taos out there than people like me.
>Terence Tao is arguing that the human involvement in research is crucial, but doesn't convincingly justify why, in my opinion. He says that "human agency is a value of fundamental importance" and that we will need to build "thriving human communities that can understand [AI ideas] together" - not for the sake of correctness, which AI may surpass us on, but for, I guess, the possibility of reclaiming human meaning and purpose. I don't disagree with this at all, but it's not an argument, it's a statement of values. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that if AI does surpass humans, it will become the economically dominant strategy to not verify them and not double check them, but to just do whatever they say.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here, and it's not really explained because I think it seems self-evident from within the field. In short: writing code is a means to an end; doing mathematics research is not, but is the end in itself.
The human involvement is crucial because the entire purpose of mathematics research is to increase human understanding of mathematics. It is pursued because it is interesting, not because it is economically useful. In this sense it's a lot closer to the humanities.
A black box oracle that just tells you whether statements are true or false is not the goal of mathematics and would not be particularly interesting to the field (except insofar as it could be harnessed to improve human understanding).
Coding is totally different from this, where it is essentially always done as a means to an end. Likewise with many other fields, like pharmaceutical research or materials science or what have you, that are oriented around solving problems for some practical purpose. Pure math isn't really like that for the most part.
I think you have misunderstood the OP's point here. You're arguing that deepening human understanding is an end in itself, and you are right. The OP is arguing that advances don't need to be pegged to human understanding, and they are right too. The two can coexist, superintelligence far ahead of us, pioneering discoveries - and mathematicians catching up at a pace suited to biological minds. I don't see the issue here. Of course, it does mean mathematicians adopt a new role as hobbyists.
> A black box oracle that just tells you whether statements are true or false is not the goal of mathematics and would not be particularly interesting to the field
This is a crude distortion. The recent breakthroughs have come with proofs, reasoning and verification, and there is no proposal that I'm aware of that would do away with these foundations. There's also some rather ugly solipsism in the idea of keeping what interests the field as a limit. Mathematics has broader relevance to humanity than merely to please and support mathematicians, and if other fields can make practical use of profound well-proven future math, mathematicians will have a hard time making a case that their comprehension must come first.
> > A black box oracle that just tells you whether statements are true or false is not the goal of mathematics and would not be particularly interesting to the field
> This is a crude distortion. The recent breakthroughs have come with proofs, reasoning and verification, and there is no proposal that I'm aware of that would do away with these foundations.
I believe that we are still at the point where these proofs serve as verifiable certificates of correctness, so that it's not a "trust me bro" situation, but where humans mostly still don't find them understandable, so that they are still just a highly reliable black box.
pyridines · · focus · HN ↗
Until very recently, I pored over every single line of code Claude generated with razor sharp scrutiny. I would usually catch issues with every response. I'm catching fewer problems these days. Maybe the model is just getting better, and maybe I'm being less careful while under pressure to ship more and more often. But model capability is obviously growing. Even back in March, you could tell it "give me a function that adds two numbers" and you could be 100% confident that it would write the correct function. There was almost no point in looking at the code. Since then, the complexity floor of problems in the category "this is so simple that the model couldn't possibly get it wrong" is rising, and with it, my cognitive surrender to the model is increasing too. Why check it? It's obviously going to be correct.
If AI designs a terawatt fusion plant, then of course we're going to meticulously pore over every detail to ensure safety, reliability, efficiency, whatever. If we find no flaws in the design whatsoever, will we be less careful about the second one? The third one? What about the ten thousandth one? Will "a nuclear fusion plant" become something that models couldn't possibly get wrong?
Terence Tao is arguing that the human involvement in research is crucial, but doesn't convincingly justify why, in my opinion. He says that "human agency is a value of fundamental importance" and that we will need to build "thriving human communities that can understand [AI ideas] together" - not for the sake of correctness, which AI may surpass us on, but for, I guess, the possibility of reclaiming human meaning and purpose. I don't disagree with this at all, but it's not an argument, it's a statement of values. Unfortunately, the stark reality is that if AI does surpass humans, it will become the economically dominant strategy to not verify them and not double check them, but to just do whatever they say. This seems like a great way to raise p(doom). But as the models get better and better, and as I'm scrutinizing Claude's output less and less... I just hope that there are more Terence Taos out there than people like me.
askjdfksdbfhk · · focus · HN ↗
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding here, and it's not really explained because I think it seems self-evident from within the field. In short: writing code is a means to an end; doing mathematics research is not, but is the end in itself.
The human involvement is crucial because the entire purpose of mathematics research is to increase human understanding of mathematics. It is pursued because it is interesting, not because it is economically useful. In this sense it's a lot closer to the humanities.
A black box oracle that just tells you whether statements are true or false is not the goal of mathematics and would not be particularly interesting to the field (except insofar as it could be harnessed to improve human understanding).
Coding is totally different from this, where it is essentially always done as a means to an end. Likewise with many other fields, like pharmaceutical research or materials science or what have you, that are oriented around solving problems for some practical purpose. Pure math isn't really like that for the most part.
squidbeak · · focus · HN ↗
> A black box oracle that just tells you whether statements are true or false is not the goal of mathematics and would not be particularly interesting to the field
This is a crude distortion. The recent breakthroughs have come with proofs, reasoning and verification, and there is no proposal that I'm aware of that would do away with these foundations. There's also some rather ugly solipsism in the idea of keeping what interests the field as a limit. Mathematics has broader relevance to humanity than merely to please and support mathematicians, and if other fields can make practical use of profound well-proven future math, mathematicians will have a hard time making a case that their comprehension must come first.
JadeNB · · focus · HN ↗
> This is a crude distortion. The recent breakthroughs have come with proofs, reasoning and verification, and there is no proposal that I'm aware of that would do away with these foundations.
I believe that we are still at the point where these proofs serve as verifiable certificates of correctness, so that it's not a "trust me bro" situation, but where humans mostly still don't find them understandable, so that they are still just a highly reliable black box.