> An A.I smarter than a Nobel prize winner.

I don't even know what this means.

If we assembled the sum total of all published human knowledge on a storage medium and gave a computer the ability to search it extremely well in order to answer any question falling within its domain, there, you would have a Nobel Prize beating "A.I".

But this is as "earth-shattering" (/s) as the idea that human knowledge can be stored outside the brain (on paper, flash drives, etc), or that the answer to complex questions can be deterministic.

And then there is the fact that this Noble winner beating "A.I" is highly unlikely to propound any ground-breaking novel ways of thinking and promote and explain it to general acceptance.

▲

esafak 3 days ago | parent [-]

Search is not intelligence, but synthesis is, and LLMs interpolate well. They don't invent new branches of mathematics and science yet.

▲

prmph 3 days ago | parent [-]

You really think the reason we revere Nobel Prize winners is because they are good at interpolating?

	▲	esafak 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		I did not say that, but you said > If we assembled the sum total of all published human knowledge on a storage medium and gave a computer the ability to search it extremely well in order to answer any question falling within its domain, there, you would have a Nobel Prize beating "A.I". Which is not what LLMs do (synthesis is the core feature, not retrieval), and not how you get a Nobel Prize; many people have access to essentially all human knowledge, but have no Nobel Prize.