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. dyauspitr · 1791140467 · focus · HN ↗

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

      This is within a very narrow view before the emergence of always running “minds” within any given domain. The only reason they don’t exist now is because they’re expensive.

      Pretty soon we’re going to have always running minds that are constantly thinking about every domain imaginable and coming up with their own proofs and improvements and everything else imaginable within those domains.

      1. Tanjreeve · 1791144268 · focus · HN ↗

         Isn't this basically the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy passage on the computer that spends millions of years to determine the ultimate answer to be 42 and then when people get upset at how meaningless that answer is offers to build another even bigger computer to figure out what the question was.

         1. dyauspitr · 1791151772 · focus · HN ↗

            It’s more akin to the minds from the culture series (though not really).

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.