Thread

1. alok-g · 1791138855 · focus · HN ↗

   I see two assumptions in the core argument, both of which are open to challenge.

   1. AI can do proofs, but deciding which problems to solve, which math is useful, is by humans.

   2. The math that's picked needs to be understandable by humans.

   For #1, AI may be able to play a significant, if not a takeover, role for even figuring out what math is useful.

   For #2, understandability by humans may be good for now, but could also turn out to be a significant constraint. Correctness is a goal, trust is an important requirement, human understandability may be an intermediary for that, but not necessarily the end goal.

   In other words, the article may stand the current state of the art, but may not stand merely a couple years down the road.

   1. ezst · 1791140422 · focus · HN ↗

      Not sure I get that. If AI is not working for humans' benefits (i.e. it is not working towards an optimization problem set-up by humans), whom is it supposed to benefit, then? (i.e. how is that better than an entropy-producing machine)?

      Same for 2, there are so many infinite ways to boil the oceans, but so few oceans to boil to begin with. Better make sure that this insane energy (both in the physical, due to natural resources scarcity, as well as intellectual) is spent towards meaningful and useful ends. We can no longer be the judges of that if we can't comprehend what we got in return.

      1. ComplexSystems · 1791148474 · focus · HN ↗

         It can still benefit humans, but there are plenty of situations where humans prioritize guarantees of formal correctness over the ease of navigating granular details.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.