logoalt Hacker News

KoolKat23 • today at 10:39 AM • 2 replies • view on HN

You know it's valid. You're not working on incorrect assumptions. Surely there's value in that?


Replies

datsci_est_2015 • today at 11:05 AM

How something is proven is often more important than what is being proven. There are underlying systems and patterns that, when understood properly, improve our model of mathematical (or physical) reality.

With convoluted and inelegant proofs, AI may fail to uncover those systems and patterns. As a most concrete example, it may fail to recognize some problems as isomorphic to other problems. Brute force solutions are a depth-first search.

To improve human mathematical understanding, AI is probably best used as a “copilot” (lol) rather than a black box oracle, like these AI companies appear to be doing.

➕ show 1 reply
charlieyu1 • today at 10:51 AM

I don’t know if it is valid. It is unverifiable. I still found some basic algebraic mistakes in top models as late as 3-4 months ago, not sure about it now. But that’s not what I want anyway, so I often put “Do not brute force” in my prompts.

➕ show 1 reply