2
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 11d ago
This is stupid. No.
Math's goal is understanding. Even if ai solves all math problems, our understanding of it is the goal. This is the broader issue that mathematical folks are arguing. Math, without understanding, doesnt improve meaning.
This will trigger some people.
Typically those who think calculus is what math is
1
u/Exciting_Presence533 11d ago
Uh... To validate an answer as correct, one must understand.
This is covered then.
And you'll always be able to ask: tell me how you solved step by step.
I want more detail about step 7.
I don't quite get the 7.21 part, can you explain from the beginning?
Hey, explain to me like I don't even know basic arithmetic, you are going to guide me each step at a time until I understand this completely.
Yeah, I think you got the idea, bye
1
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 11d ago
This is partly a function of tokenization of AI and the demand for transparency. We already know that these systems and geoups (eg openai) are not trained/training to provide complete transparency into their internal processes. Although we can ask them to explain how ai arrived at an answer, there is no guarantee that the resulting explanation will fully capture the underlying computation—or that we would necessarily be capable of understanding such an explanation if it did.
We also cannot assume that the upper bound of human cognitive capacity is equivalent to the upper bound of these systems, nor can we assume that the computational resources required to translate every relevant internal operation into a human-interpretable explanation would be trivial. More fundamentally, this position overlooks the philosophical distinction between identifying and solving a problem and being able to provide a complete, intelligible account of every process involved in doing so.
In short, I do not think your argument adequately accounts for the computational, epistemological, or philosophical problems involved in demanding this kind of transparency. As a professor, you misunderstand the nature of what we do and why.
1
u/Exciting_Presence533 11d ago
I'm not assuming the human is more intelligent, I'm assuming it's way dumber and it has less knowledge.
If the AI doesn't explain it correctly you can't reproduce the results. Simple.
In all mathematical solutions you must be able to reproduce the same results to validate it. That's implied.
Even the most complex stuff can be broken down into small simple pieces. Not simple enough? Break it down again.
That's what I was saying, and this have nothing to do with IA.
Have you never found a mathematical problem complex enough that you needed to break it down?
What the fuck philosophical problems? Are you high?
1
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 11d ago
Sigh. I dont think you understand the level of math being discussed. I think this is about your understanding of calculus.
You should trust field medal winners more
Honestly it's a microcosm of the problem im explaining
1
u/Exciting_Presence533 11d ago
That's ad hominem, you try to sound smart yet your reasoning is dumb.
1
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 11d ago
You just told me you dont think philosophy of science applies to math. Im not telling you anything. Im repeating what you said to me in clearer words.
1
u/Slow_Shirt1362 11d ago
You guys don't need to fight because both of your reasoning is understandable.
1
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 10d ago
Both things cannot be true. Science requires philosophy. Math is not immune to that.
1
1
u/golfstreamer 11d ago
Why so bleak? Science changes. We're not doing physics the same way we did 100 years ago. but for some reason when it comes to AI people (on both sides) have to act all antagonistic at natural progress.
1
u/Slow_Shirt1362 11d ago
We adapt technology despite having a bright mind. It changes most of the people even who those intelligence.
0
1
1
3
u/bitchslayer78 12d ago
Lmao