Now math gets to deal with that same reckoning. They were already well on their way there with previous Lean proofs, but this has pushed things beyond that horizon and I'm not sure some of the mathematicians are ready for it.
As a comparison, classical computing has been scaled up a bazillion fold too, and can do things which are absolutely miraculous, but every layer of abstraction is discretely understandable.
Also, while biological systems simply exist in nature, artificial neural networks are ultimately mathematical objects with various properties that have yet to be uncovered.
The LLM model was able to break down and express math in such a simple way that I could understand and follow the training of the LLM model itself!
Are the math and computation accurate? I don’t know, and likely there are significant errors. Nonetheless, if I had a little more time -- not infinite time -- I would be able to prove whether they are or not.
Likely this is the path forward for understanding the mechanisms of medicine, and since most humans learn by doing and interacting with an environment, interacting like this will become how we use AI for learning in the near future.
Would you prefer to take the medicine that is proven to work or the one that is quite interesting for academic reasons behind its understood mechanisms but doesn't actually work?
> Suddenly, with this AI math thing in the past year or two, he is starting to get more non-academic focused attention.
He's just gaining popularity in your bubble, which is probably not much larger than the audience he previously had. It's not like he's suddenly become orders of magnitude more famous.