dsubburam

> But do I “understand” the proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem, given that earlier this year I gave 22 hours worth of lectures on the topic?

Even if no one human can understand the entirety of a complex proof, surely we can piece together multiple experts' separate understandings, so the community as a whole 'understands' the proof?

Is there value in us 'understanding' a proof? Even if no single human can understand a complex proof soup-to-nuts, and we have to piece together several experts' understandings?

If the answer is Not really, then the value of a proof is its utility, its utility in making new products/services, and its utility in making new proofs. If in the case of abstract math, all the utility is of the latter kind (making new proofs), then we have a pyramid scheme here.

Interesting. I think this also explains in part why I prefer CDs to a streaming service for listening to music.

Would you side with the adjacent statement "expertise is not the bottleneck"? Didn't we recently discuss "LLMs reward expertise"?[1]

I suspect Discovery Loop will have to hire experts in each area they are targeting, to supervise and prompt their system effectively, much like the Terence Tao conversation with ChatGPT the OP cited[2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49161518 [2] https://www.seangoedecke.com/llms-reward-expertise/

Article looks substantially AI written, and I find it difficult to get past that, especially on a topic like ethics[1]. We already have the following guideline for comments:

"Don't post generated text or AI-edited text. HN is for conversation between humans."

I for one will value a similar guideline for submissions. Maybe we can have a poll. @dang.

[1]maybe an AI written article is fine if it is e.g. documentation for some new gadget.

How about speed and speedometers in cars? For some reason I prefer digital readouts of speed while I prefer analog faces for watches/clocks.

> They are not vocal because any political activism is not encouraged in China . Check jack ma story .

This is an under-rated comment. "Nice" seeming places in Asia might be so because the governments tightly control the narrative and brook no dissent. Citizens end up minding their own business and become apolitical. Society looks neat and organized; but if you don't conform, you get hammered down.

I do not know what fraction of LLM-processed messages are due to posters not being confident in their written English. To the extent that it is meaningful, we can

a) be welcoming and indicate that we're OK with broken English (content and intent typically do get through), and/or

b) allow posting in languages other than English (does this even work right now?).

Above probably ahead of its time, but thought I'd just make the suggestion.

A lawyer told me they might have felt they had no choice because enforcing a no-AI policy might be impractical.

Maybe we can distinguish craftmanship from creativity. This case can then be cast as one of deploying creativity without embodying the traditional craftmanship (ability to play guitar, sing low notes). I don't see that as illegitimate, so long as no false credit is taken about the said guitar playing, low note singing.

Can an artist be good if they can't draw a good circle by hand? Yes. Except they can't take credit for the goodness of circles that appear in their work, if not drawn by them.

[Edit: "responsibility" -> "credit"]

Her recent article about her illness and how she lived through it was quite touching and very sad. On the New Yorker, and posted on HN[1], though it did not get much discussion here then.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46024709

Music is an interesting case. You can't slow down the consumption of music (you have to let it play at the speed the performer intended), but you can dial up the attention you give it. Listening with headphones, eyes closed, and phone+doorbell etc. switched off would be close to max. Sitting at a live concert (I am thinking classical) is up there too, because you've given yourself permission to not think of/work on anything else in that time. For music, we can say that the default settings are too LOW.

And similar to the point OP made, you get more out of it when you attend more closely. And similarly, most music does not withstand this level of scrutiny.

Another way lawyers can get displaced is if the rule of law breaks down. Then, whether you can get, say, regulatory approval for a deal, will depend more on if you can bribe someone than on carefully drafting and negotiating the terms.

This makes it in the lawyers' interest to stand their ground when established legal principles are under attack.

Persuasion that happens in good faith is a two-way street. You explain your position, but also truly listen to theirs. If you are prepared to change your own position based on what they say, then you can hope that they might change theirs based on what you say.

If it is truly two way in this sense, including your best efforts to extract from the other party their strongest, potentially unexpected, arguments for their position and give them your due consideration, it shouldn't feel like manipulation.

I do not know how "general intelligence" is defined, but there are a set of features we humans have that other animals mostly don't, as per the philosopher Roger Scruton[1], that I am reproducing from memory (errors mine):

1. Animals have desires, but do not make choices

We can choose to do what we do not desire, and choose not to do what we desire. For animals, one does not need to make this distinction to explain their behavior (Occam's razor)--they simply do what they desire.

2. Animals "live in a world of perception" (Schopenhauer)

They only engage with things as they are. They do not reminisce about the past, plan for the future, or fantasize about the impossible. They do not ask "what if?" or "why?". They lack imagination.

3. Animals do not have the higher emotions that require a conceptual repertoire

such as regret, gratitude, shame, pride, guilt, etc.

4. Animals do not form complex relationships with others

Because it requires the higher emotions like gratitude and resentment, and concepts such as rights and responsibilities.

5. Animals do not get art or music

We can pay disinterested attention to a work of art (or nature) for its own sake, taking pleasure from the exercise of our rational faculties thereof.

6. Animals do not laugh

I do not know if the science/philosophy of laughter is settled, but it appears to me to be some kind of phenomenon that depends on civil society.

7. Animals lack language

in the full sense of being able to engage in reason-giving dialogue with others, justifying your actions and explaining your intentions.

Scruton believed that all of the above arise together.

I know this is perhaps a little OT, but I seldom if ever see these issues mentioned in discussions about AGI. Maybe less applicable to super-intelligence, but certainly applicable to the "artificial human" part of the equation.

[1] Philosophy: Principles and Problems. Roger Scruton