MrDrDr

Is the purpose of mathematical research to understand the ‘truth’ of numbers? or be the person who find that truth? I think people who are interested in finding the truth won’t care where it came from.

Is the true in America? I’m in the UK, and while social isolation, particularly for men is probably worse than it was, I think many, myself included, have at least one person we can turn to in times of crisis. Or am I in a bubble?

There is clearly issues about IP, privacy and accreditation and the motives of powerful companies, but part of me can't help but be excited that whatever the method, the result is the genuine progression of human knowledge - we all win. It's not unusual for mathematical problems to last centuries and we might have a technology that can solve these problem, all these problems (??) in our lifetime. Then there's the repercussions on science and technology... what an astonishing time to be alive.

- upvoting sport, its a real mood stabiliser. I agree with all the others in your list and would add music (I sing) as real mood enhancer.

I find Claude language often hard to process and having to wade through these words can be draining. Embarrassingly, I’ve recently caught myself using them in conversations! Do all models have the their own jargon?

I am currently in talks with a philanthropic organisation about building such a platform. To me the challenge is not technical, it's commercial. How can you build a sustainable business model without adds? I'd be interested in peoples thoughts about ethical ways to monetise such a platform. The goal would be sustainability, not growth.

I believe I am conscious and that consciousness is a thing. I just don't believe there is a process where 'unconscious' things become conscious. So Panpsychism is a bit of a cope out. It's not a verifiable in any scientific sense and so can't be disproved. You could say that it's therefore a 'folk psychology' or a religious belief. But at the fundamentals of any word view (scientific or otherwise) are axiomatic beliefs or articles of faith and I think consciousness is best off living down there.

I like this distinction, but it would then seem the only 'invention' would be the axioms of your mathematics. There exists numbers (natural, imaginary...), there exist shapes (a point, a line...). All the work from that point on could be 'discovered'. I agree that I don't see LLMs inventing in this way. But again, it raised the question - what are our brains doing when we 'invent' something?

> "Even though I can motivate it in retrospect, ChatGPT’s idea to use h^2-dissociated sets to control relations of order at most h feels quite ingenious. As far as I can tell, this idea is completely original."

The question that keep bothering me is can an LLM generate an idea that is truly novel? How would/could that actually happen? But then that leads to the question - what are we actually doing when we think?

Perhaps it's as simple as the ability to just make mistakes that matters, the same things that powers evolution. As long as the LLM can make mistakes, it's capable of generating something genuinely novel. And it can make more mistakes much faster than we can.

Agreed. I see this debate as an active discussion as to what intelligence is, not how it's currently (poorly) defined This is a philosophical discussion, and there is no correct answer, but IMO some answers will prove more useful than others. I would like to define intelligence as the ability to solve problems. Lots of other life forms have this ability, and its clear that LLMs also have this. Now, while they may not be poetic (in the literal sense of the word), or conscious, in that 'they' do not experience the world. I think there is a strong case for arguing they conform to a meaningful definition of intelligence. They solve problems.

Please elaborate.

N.B. The video is from May 2004 (during the Biden administration)