| ▲ | rustyhancock 8 hours ago | |||||||
I think a very long time because part of our limit is experiment. We need enough experimental results to explain to solve these theoretical mismatches and we don't and at present can't explore that frontier. Once we have more results at that frontier we'd build a theory out from there that has two nearly independent limits for QFT and GR. What we'd be asking if the AI is something that we can't expect a human to solve even with a lifetime of effort today. It'll take something in par with Newton realising that the heavens and apples are under the same rules to do it. But at least Newton got to hold the apple and only had to imagine he could a star. | ||||||||
| ▲ | eru 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
> I think a very long time because part of our limit is experiment. Yes, maybe. But if you are smarter, you can think up better experiments that you can actually do. Or re-use data from earlier experiments in novel and clever ways. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | bob1029 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
What prevents us from giving this system access to other real systems that live in physical labs? I don't see much difference between parameterizing and executing a particle accelerator run and invoking some SQL against a provider. It's just JSON on the wire at some level. | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | fragmede 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
The question is, if you trained an LLM on everything up until 1904, could it come up with E=MC² or not? | ||||||||
| ||||||||