GP was stating that they don't believe this would happen (I don't either), but also to make the point that it's a falsifiable view. (At least in theory. In practice, there probably won't even be enough historical text to train an LLM on). No, I don't think it would be falsified. Asking what if I'm wrong is kind of redundant. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, duh.
replyHow are you going to train a frontier level llm with no references to post 1700 mathematics?
replyTime cutoff LLMs are regularly posted to HN. It takes just one success to prove feasibility.
replyBesides, we can forecast our thoughts and actions to imagined scenarios unconditioned on their possibility. Something doesn't have to be possible for us to imagine our reactions.
"frontier level" is doing a lot of work there, but the idea would be to only feed it earlier sources.
replyThere are people working on this.
The problem is the amount of data with that cutoff is really minuscule to produce anything powerful. You might be able to generate a lot of 1700s sounding data, you’d have to be careful not to introduce newer concepts or ways of thinking in that synthetic data though. A lot of modern texts talk about rates of change and the like in ways that are probably influenced by preexisting knowledge of calculus.
replyDoesn't it prove GP's point then, that LLMs themselves simply aren't capable of creating/proving new theories and axioms?
replyWithout passing opinion on GP's point, I think that just proves it's hard to establish a data set that doesn't bias toward the result you're hoping to find.
replyArchimede was close.
replyI don't think its really feasible - there just isn't enough training data before calculus. I would guess all the mathematical and philosophical texts available to Newton and Leibniz would fit on a CD-ROM with loads of space to spare.
reply