upvote
You display zero understanding of the human experience you’re responding to.
reply
That's not the same as talking with the person who would have made the proof, and it's hard to argue that's comparable at all.
reply
The OP would never, EVER, have had the opportunity to talk with the mythical Japanese math genius over tea. Their story is a fantasy, probably meant to help the OP ascribe meaning to an otherwise scary existence. Which may be at the root of the anti-AI brigade's unconcious motiviations.
reply
While the math genius in this thread is mythical, I sort of had Shinichi Mochizuki in mind.
reply
Likely will never experience talking with that model.

It’s probably distributed on so much compute that it would never be economical to serve it to you or I or anybody

reply
It's still not quite the same though, is it.
reply
It's even better. Then tons of people can work together with it on more problems. Work with it on understanding more things. Ask it about random stuff. The time of a single human cannot be parallelized as easily.
reply
Claude has been used to build awesome things, but it’s not “speaking from experience” when I ask it to help me prototype a weather model, for example.

It has no memory or experience of working on similar problems. Even if it made one of the foundational libraries that I use in a weather forecasting program, it still has no comprehension of the thought process it takes to understand the problem and build it from zero, and if I’m building on that library it just makes fresh assumptions about how things should work.

It’s not a human with experience or expertise, it’s a computer program that’s really good at turning English descriptions into functioning code

reply
>it still has no comprehension of the thought process it takes to understand the problem and build it from zero

If it did it once, it can do it again from zero, and this time you can watch as it works and even it ask it questions. Many of the agents that worked on the problem did not have comprehension of the whole problem. I don't think you need that many tokens to be able to query it for the insights it had during the process.

reply
> Many of the agents that worked on the problem did not have comprehension of the whole problem

Isn’t this the issue with using it the way you’re suggesting? At best the model can come up with an after-the-fact rationalization of how to get to the solution, but it doesn’t know what actual path it took to get there - what were interesting traps it fell into, where was a place it was close to the solution but didn’t realize at the time.

Those are things that are valuable to share between humans, those which teach us how to think better, and give us deeper understanding ourselves, and which a model doesn’t have any comprehension of.

reply
Then have it discover it again and have it answer based off that run. Or if you are more curious have it solve it 10 times. See what it did differently each time.
reply
I think you and I have fundamental disagreements about identity and consciousness.
reply