| ▲ | bee_rider 2 hours ago | |
This feels like a maybe interesting position, but I don’t really follow what you mean. Is it possible to just state it directly? Asking us to ponder is sort of vague. These math LLMs seem very different from humans. A person has a specialty. A LLM that was as skilled as, say, a middling PhD recipient (not superhuman), but also was that skilled in literally every field, maybe somebody could argue that’s superhuman (“smarter” than any one human). By this standard a room full of people or an academic journal could also be seen as superhuman. Which is not unreasonable, communication is our superpower. | ||
| ▲ | sdenton4 an hour ago | parent [-] | |
Yeah - it's interesting where the edge is. In theory, an llm trained in everything should be more ready to make cross-field connections. But doing that well requires certain kind of translation and problem selection work which is hard even for humans. (I would even say, beyond PhD level - knowing which problem is with throwing PhD students at is the domain of professors... And many of them are bad at it, as well.) On the human side, mathematical silos reduce our ability to notice opportunities for cross-silo applications. There should be lots of opportunity available. | ||