juvvel

If we as humanity cannot protect fields like art, science, even healthcare and housing, from the ever-growing pressure to make a profit off of them, then we are truly doomed. AI is not the sole cause, it just expedites the process of destroying everything that is not maximally cost-effective.

I'm inclined to agree that a loty if not most of human knowledge is "a very good working hypothesis" at best. But LLMs are also trained on that. There is nothing inherent to them that makes them see the world for what it "really" is. AI introduces its own filter, it also approximates reality. If it could help us process complexity better, I don't know. It might be worth exploring.

And yet, biology and chemistry researchers still exist and they still ask questions we might never get an answer to. Such is science. If humanity had only ever done things that had a guaranteed result, many things would have never been invented or discovered.

There is a difference between formulating a hypothesis based on observations and treating it as true. As I understood it, things that are not proven yet will not be used to formally prove other things.

You are purposefully misconstructing what I said to mean "humans only need to feel special". Obviously they need more than that. Your reply is just mean-spirited for no reason.

Thing is that people don't want to be "freed up" from their comfortable, high-paying jobs. Because then they likely need to return to metaphorical toiling in the field.

It could be that there are more companies though, companies that couldn't afford a large team before. Now they can start delivering value with just, say, 3 people, making the business worthwhile. At least that's one optimistic scenario.

Humans are not inherently special by some law of the universe, but a society that doesn't consider humans special is a pretty shitty society for a human to live in. We don't have to surrender to the fact that humans are just tiny, unimportant specks of dust in the galaxy. We can assign meaning to stuff despite that, and it's what we've been doing for our whole existence. Of course one can always find new meaning, but attacking the foundation of all meaning of human life does feel pretty severe. And to me, AI accelerationists sound pseudo-religious, too. They're either enamored with doomsday scenarios or the idea of living in endless abundance, both are pretty much magical thinking.

You'd be surprised how much of nuclear energy regulation is in fact based on "it just feels scary".

I'd assume that theoretical math prides itself in trying to be as close to pure logic as it gets. It has very little, if any empirical elements (at least that's what it looks like to me). And I understand the value in trying to preserve that pure logic element. In the end, biology is just chemistry, chemistry is just physics, and physics is just math. If you feel like your profession is the bedrock of all other science, it probably feels weird to shake its theoretical foundation.

For math, you don't really have empirical data though. There is no trial you can do to find out whether, statistically, the proof works as intended. Because pure theoretical math rarely produces a measurable result.

I don't see why these things should be mutually exclusive. You can start prescribing the drug (= working with the AI-generated math proofs) while still trying to understand how it works exactly. Because the explanation might prove invaluable. I don't think anyone would be object to using an AI-proven theorem to further their work if it helps, but a scientist would surely object to the notion that we should just stop working towards understanding. Asking "but why though" is literally a scientist's job.

In a way where it actually pays them well? Most of the general public uses the ChatGPT free tier, I'd assume.

1. Look in fridge before work 2. Add any missing items to shopping list 3. Reference said list on the way home from work

I have seen lots of comments to that effect on HN. "How do you know whether your brain is not just a next token predictor too?"