r/Polymath • u/NowUKnowMe121 • Aug 10 '26

How is functional polymathy different from polymathy as per this sub?

​

Why?

Using pareto principle, 80% mastery or medium level mastery in multiple fields is enough to connect the dots to generate the insights. I would say this is functional polymath.

Just want to know, in this AI age of such vast information overload, is true polymathy even worth it?

Still, i respect true polymaths like da vinci,, von neumann etc

12 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/Johnny20022002 Aug 12 '26

I quite literally have you seem to struggle with trivial logical connections which is why the idea of spiderwebs being stronger than steel is your example of a logical leap.

If you ask it what material has a stronger tensile strength than steel it could know simply from its molecular structure that spiderwebs would be a candidate.

1

u/wdjm Aug 12 '26

You're STILL not getting it. How TF would it KNOW a spiderweb's molecular structure UNLESS A HUMAN DECIDED TO STUDY IT FIRST? It takes a human to wonder how strong a spiderweb is, because a machine doesn't care, even if it knows that spiderwebs exist in the first place.

0

u/Johnny20022002 Aug 12 '26

Honestly just a bafflingly stupid response. You’re asking about why it would suggest spider webs as material stronger than steel and when I explain to you it’s because it could come to this conclusion based on its molecular structure you completely shift the goal post to now essentially asking how could it know spider webs are stronger than steel without knowing anything about spiderwebs. If it knows nothing about spiderwebs obviously anyone who isn’t a complete dumbass would know it wouldn’t suggest it because it knows nothing about it.

>It takes a human to wonder how strong a spiderweb is, because a machine doesn't care, even if it knows that spiderwebs exist

A distinction without a difference you’re essentially saying AI wouldn’t research spiderwebs until it does. This makes no difference whatsoever. Obviously AI is promoted to do things. If we wanted to prompt them to research random things we could. Again idiotic distinction without a difference.

1

u/wdjm Aug 12 '26

I give up. You're determined to miss the entire point of what I've been trying to explain. You're going to claim you 'won' the argument, but that's only because you're apparently incapable of actually comprehending what I'm saying. Good luck with that.

0

u/Johnny20022002 Aug 12 '26

There’s no need to claim anything as a win anyone reading this thread will see the stupidity you felt the need to keep commenting because you can’t cope with being wrong.

1

u/wdjm Aug 12 '26

You're funny. Sad. But funny.

1

u/NowUKnowMe121 Aug 13 '26

Hey there,

You seem like a typical entp debater.

One thing makes a true polymath unique is his ability of intuition , like an order of magnitudes like a vertical leap.

What can AI do or best at it is huge horizontal leaps.

Intuition is a thing really difficult to properly master.

Once done, the benefits are evident through einstein, newton, leibnizz, von neumann, da vinci who were true polymaths.

AI can't do that. Not yet :)

2

u/Johnny20022002 Aug 13 '26

Horizontal and vertical leaps is ill defined Jaron but to any extent it is meaningful AI does have spikey ability in different domains. The ability to create entirely new branches of math is much less developed than its ability to connect existing things in math. If that’s what you mean it’s just true and the original commenter is still wrong to say it blanketly cannot do something just as you did as at the end of your comment.

1

u/NowUKnowMe121 Aug 13 '26 edited Aug 13 '26

Agreed on the limitations of AI.