We don’t trillions of dollars in LLM investment to build things mathematicians don’t understand. We already have plenty of those, even from ancient times.
As to your second point, Terry Tao already has an answer [1]: the proof isn’t the contribution, shared understanding is. This issue was already raised back when the four-colour theorem was proved. Machine proving and machine proof checking are useful tools but they don’t mean anything without the interpretative work and the communication necessary to build shared understanding.
If humans have nothing to contribute then shared understanding is a pointless endeavor. It makes sense now in the "centaur" period where human + AI > AI alone, but when AI mathematicians are both more rigorous and more elegant, then taking the time dumbing down their proofs to a human level of understanding is like requiring that we ensure all our current proofs be understandable by a monkey.
> If humans have nothing to contribute then shared understanding is a pointless endeavor.
I agree, but as a software engineer this gives me pause because I keep trying to insist on coding standards but I’m unable to come up with a compelling reason why it matters. Ostensibly the reason we cared about things like DRY and code quality was so that it would be easy to understand and easy to maintain and easy to make changes to later. But it now seems like a shared understanding of the codebase is less important than ever, and it’s more about shoveling requirements in without breaking any existing functionality.
Is a well tested slopfest better? That seems to be the conclusion for mathematics, so why not software too?
> easy to make changes to later
IMO it's still a problem with LLMs; we still have to build in a way that makes it easier for an LLM to make changes later and arguably it's the same things that made software development easier for humans. IME LLMs tend to not know how to do that for themselves and instead just amplify/copy patterns that already exist.
If an LLM can't pave the way for itself then ultimately shared understanding is required to take advantage of LLMs in the first place.
It used to be the same with assembly. Programmers complained the one generated by compilers was not pretty, but now in 99.999% of the cases, it does not matter because nobody look at it.
I beg to differ because a compiler is deterministic.
Did you check? Do you care if it sometimes does mov ax, 0 or sometimes xor ax,ax? (Forgive my bad memory, it was a long time ago)
Would you personally vouch, at your job, for the importance of proper assembly coding standards?
Yes, the same compiler generates the same output given the same input. I'd be willing to put a large amount of money on that result.
I read a lot of assembly.
I was more after the fact i can trust the compiler to give me the same result - even though via an optimized path.
Certainly scopes vary, but in my line of work i define memory layout and how this data will be processed myself - thus it's great a compiler might do that, but the result of the computation will not change.
Now in comparison giving an LLM specs ... i a) cannot be sure what the computation will be b) it might be something else on another run.
Where is the value in an unintelligible gibberish proof?
We already have countless examples of such filling up the arXiv, written by hacks long before LLMs started writing proofs. No one cares about them. You might as well build a box blasting radio static into the void. You could save a lot of electricity that way.
An unintelligible but correct proof is better than no proof. These first AI proofs may be overly complex and un-elegant, but they are the worst that frontier math proofs will ever be. AI math in 2030 will be leaps and bounds ahead of humans both in rigor and elegance.
Those are some strong claims. I’m deeply skeptical of all of them.
I believe Terry Tao when he says the bottleneck will no longer be the writing of proofs, it’ll be everything else: reading them, reviewing, publishing, and teaching from them. A bunch of proofs that nobody reads are of no use to anyone.
But but but... Does not AI exists (or has to exist) to only serve us.
I suppose it could compete with us.
[dead]
Why not? We build cranes to hoist weights construction workers can't lift. We build electron microscopes to measure things physicists can't see.
Why is it so hard to imagine we can build tools to think thoughts we can't comprehend?
If there's commercial value, I think it's inevitable. We don't fund mathematicians because it's cute when they understand a problem, but because their work tends to have applications with commercial value. The value can be captured without understanding the details.
Can you give an example of an incomprehensible piece of writing (any writing, never mind a proof) that has commercial value commensurate with the costs involved here?
> Can you give an example of an incomprehensible piece of writing (any writing, never mind a proof) that has commercial value commensurate with the costs involved here?
It depends on what exactly you mean by "commercial value commensurate with the costs involved" but I'd volunteer the 3G/4G/5G specifications and the other documentation required to implement the mobile network protocols. 5G is currently sitting at over 50,000 pages and it's one of the reasons Qualcomm/Broadcom/Apple are the only ones who can realistically make a mobile radio.
I don't think there is a single human to whom more than a few thousand pages would be comprehensible at a time except for the occasional genius.
Read the rest of the discussion. The claim is about text which is in principle incomprehensible to humans.
If there exists a text which only one person can understand, that person can communicate their understanding to others, even if that doesn't help them with the original text. That dissemination of knowledge is what provides the value, not the mere existence of the text. If that person forgets or dies before they can share their knowledge then it will be lost.
We have many examples of this from history: ancient texts written in a lost language. These texts provide us with no value until the day they can be deciphered, unless you count linguistic puzzle-solving as a virtue.
> If there exists a text which only one person can understand, that person can communicate their understanding to others, even if that doesn't help them with the original text.
If there exists a text which only an AI can understand, that AI can communicate their key conclusions to others, even if that doesn't help them with the original text.
The only difference here is the amount of meat involved. Perhaps tossing a few steaks on the server racks could help with that.
If an AI can communicate its findings to us in a way that we can understand it, then its findings are by definition intelligible to humans. Your claim was about texts for which this is not possible.
So, you're willing to claim that a conclusion that you don't understand the reasoning for is equivalent to comprehension?
Because, again, I can point to hundreds of examples of texts where nobody but the author understands it, and they're only giving summarized "commandments" that you should follow if you want good results.
If I told you "don't use spin locks, call futex instead", do you think have gained an understanding of the Linux scheduler?
If I told you "don't use spin locks, call futex instead", do you think have gained an understanding of the Linux scheduler?
Yes, because I already knew what schedulers are, what spinlocks are, and if I want to know what futex is I can go look it up. Comprehension is within my grasp.
Your original claim, which you’ve repeatedly distanced yourself from (by trying to use comprehensible examples) but won’t admit to, was about incomprehensible stuff. That is, text that no human could possibly understand, ever.
You’re repeatedly engaging in intellectual dishonesty rather than simply admit that “human comprehension probably will continue for the foreseeable future”, which is really not a controversial idea at all.
Bullshit. Human comprehension will not continue, it will reduced to "when the AI tells us to add Bismuth, strontium, and copper together in this way, we get a superconductor", but that doesn't mean we understand high temperature superconductivity.
For what it's worth, we've known about BSCCO for nearly 40 years, and we still don't have a great physical understanding of how it works, thought we made decent progress in 2022.
That’s still comprehensible. Incomprehensible chemistry instructions simply could not be followed by any human. They would be of no use to anyone.
You're using a very bad definition of incomprehensible. We don't understand the chemistry behind how these things work, it's that simple. If you're going to argue it's comprehensible, you'd better show how it works and go collect your Nobel prize.
All we know is that if we melt the right rocks together, we get a superconductor that works in some mysterious way that we can't explain. We know it's not Cooper pairs.
No, I’m using the right one [1]. You are the one using a bizarre definition for your own purposes.
I can see there is no further productive discussion to be had with you at all. I bid you good day.
[1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/incomprehensible
Since it's comprehensible, please point me to someone that can comprehend high temperature superconductivity and how it works, and then explain why they didn't explain it.
With the definition you seem to want to use, it's impossible for anything to be incomprehensible, and therefore it's tautological that there's no incomprehensible LLM output: nothing at all is incomprehensible.
Do you have an example of anything incomprehensible? Anything at all? Even the things that Gödel would say are inaccessible could, in theory, become accessible: we just don't know with absolute certainly that the mathematics it was based on got all the axioms right, though we see no errors now.
Yeah, how many people do you think understand the Linux kernel in full? What percentage of the people using it to great commercial effect can understand it?
How's your understanding of Schroedingers "An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules"? You seem to be using the results of it as applied to semiconductor engineering just fine. And, I promise you, most semiconductor engineers haven't read it in full, they just accepted the results as passed on by several layers of teacher.
I have a paper on routing algorithms, which I have attempted to read to my cat. I don't think my cat retained much, but they seem to be enjoying the cat food that got delivered using the results.
I'd suggest that we're going to be a lot closer to the cat than the author of the paper when AI takes off.
You've moved the goalposts. The original claim was about producing mathematics that are in principle impossible for any human to understand.
All the stuff you've listed is understood by some person, and that understanding is the source of its value.
Now that we've cleared that up, can you furnish an example that satisfies the original claim of incomprehensibility and value?
You asked for examples, for a technology that we're still building. Maybe you can see the issue with that?
Anyways, people benefitted greatly from Newton's laws of gravity, even though we still don't have a quantum-compatible set of laws for it. The laws of gravity are still incomprehensible for people, but the approximation that we've observed is still immensely valuable.
No, I gave you a lot more leeway than that. Take any utterly incomprehensible piece of writing from the entire history of civilization and demonstrate its value.
You keep falling back on "incomprehensible for some people" but that wasn't the claim. It was about a text which is incomprehensible in principle; that is, utterly impossible for any human to ever understand.
His examples work fine but you aren't accepting them because they don't confine to your paradox.
Every writing must be comprehensible to at least the author, regardless of whether it has commercial value or not. If I hit the keyboard a few times, I've created writing, but it doesn't mean anything. It is just gibberish and without meaning, so there is nothing to try to comprehend. So if there is something to be comprehended, then at minimum the author should know it.
Therefore what you keep claiming is the only refute of your argument of "an [...] incomprehensible [...] writing" is actually a paradox, and cannot be disproved itself. However "humans comprehending things" is not a paradox, which means that your specific request to beat your paradox is not actually related at all.
His examples disproving the non-paradox version of your challenge (writing incomprehensible to folks other than the original authors) are sufficient to disprove your statement, as he gave examples of both people not comprehending human made and 'God' made writing (the universe/gravity)
That's because his examples are obvious and not at all interesting, since we've already seen them.
His original claim amounts to creating an AI that takes its place above humans as some kind of electronic God, delivering edicts to humanity that we cannot comprehend, but which somehow have value to us. It's unskeptical, pseudo-religious nonsense.
I don't see that at all. Nowhere did this person evoke placing AI above people or even remotely evoke religious imagery. You imagined that yourself, and that creeps me out.
It’s right here:
The age of humans comprehending things is coming to an end [1]
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49312914
That does not place AI above humans and neither does it evoke anything religious.
Look at it this way. AI has destroyed humanity at chess for decades now. That doesn't mean we have placed AI above humans in the general sense.
You have basically totally fabricated what you thought the other person was saying.
Can you give me an example single piece of writing that the author didn't claim they understood? I don't think that any utterly incomprehensible writing exists.
If you want examples where nobody but the author understands it, examples are a dime a dozen.
So you concede the point then. The age of humans comprehending things is not coming to an end. And therein lies the rub. When it comes to intellectual labour:
Understanding == Value
If a mathematician produces something incomprehensible then it has no value. It's meaningless. Indistinguishable from random noise.
An AI which produces incomprehensible text is producing no value. We didn't need to spend trillions of dollars on LLMs to figure that out. Markov chains can do that job perfectly well.
You may have missed the present tense. I didn't say it's over, but that it will be. Please pay attention and don't make straw men.
Again, do you believe that there are documents, of any value, that humans don't understand?
Maybe an LLM could help you notice what I was saying, since it's clearly beyond at least one human's comprehension!
Again, do you believe that there are documents, of any value, that humans don't understand?
There is no value in an undeciphered document until understanding is achieved, just as a lode of gold ore in some asteroid orbiting a distant star has no value until we can fly there and extract it.
If an LLM can help us understanding something then it was not incomprehensible, by definition.
But this is just arguing over word tenses. You think "cannot", they think "could". Somewhere between there is the actual crux of disagreement.
Nothing is in principle impossible to understand. It just takes too long, is inconvenient and/or economically unviable.
I don’t find it hard at all to imagine that an AI comes up with a fundamental proof applicable to physics which results in some widget we can now produce that would otherwise not have been produced yet nobody takes the time to fully comprehend why it works. Somebody could, in principle, devote their lives to it and possibly get it, but for what purpose?
There are plenty of artifacts that, if not impossible for humans to understand, then at least no human has ever completely understood. To start with, the universe as a whole. Despite that, we are able to choose legible pieces of it to model and perform useful actions from.
This will shift your argument--that doesn't count! etc., to the point where it's by construction unsatisfiable and vacuous. And it doesn't matter: an LLM might e.g. break some cryptographic algorithm in a way utterly unintelligible to humans, but the fact that it works would be sufficient on its own to make all of us choose to abandon that algorithm and choose different ones.
One person need not completely understand something for it to have value; it's sufficient for there to exist a shared understanding.
an LLM might e.g. break some cryptographic algorithm in a way utterly unintelligible to humans, but the fact that it works would be sufficient on its own to make all of us choose to abandon that algorithm and choose different ones.
No, that is the entire point. If it is an algorithm which accomplishes something useful, then it is intelligible as such. That which is incomprehensible cannot be understood even in part, so it provides no value as a bit of knowledge (unless you're looking for a strong random number source, I suppose).
So, what you're asking for is an example of someone extracting value out of something that is fundamentally irreducible random noise?
> how many people do you think understand the Linux kernel in full?
"Not many people understand some things fully" is so massively different from "the human mind is incapable of understanding some things that AI will understand for us"
Yeah. We're only starting the journey of building tools better at thinking than the human mind, so expecting me to have examples of things it produces is a little hard, don't you think?
The best I can do is things that are incomprehensible to nearly everyone, but still provide value. There's a small leap of imagination to consider an author that understands it and can show others how to leverage results without understanding be mechanical rather than biological.
Can you give an example of a 4-wheeled vehicle that could move at tens of miles per hour before the automobile was invented?
I know right? And there’s only a market for maybe 5 computers in the whole world.
Paul Krugman (1998): predicted the internet’s economic impact would be no greater than the fax machine’s.
The 1876 Western Union memo dismissing the telephone as having too many shortcomings, and the banker telling Horace Rackham not to invest in Ford because the automobile was a novelty.
We are in good company!
Past performance does not guarantee future returns.
The idea about the goal of mathematics being shared understanding seems to come at a convenient time.
Mathematicians have never been known to communicate their ideas very clearly.
Regardless, even that target llms will likely win - an llm will likely be more efficient at teaching me string theory than a professor in a room with 463 other students.
The llm is the shared understanding.
I don't think "shared knowledge" means "shared knowledge between mathematicians and lay persons" (there is no much point in that, the same way a smartphone technician knows how a smartphone works deep down to the details but there is no big interest for society to have every lay persons being informed about it). I think it means "shared knowledge between mathematicians".
And at this level, while there are anecdotical exceptions, mathematicians have always been pretty decent (with their conferences, workshops, paper publications, international collaborations, ...).
So, it does not mean "teaching the subject", it means "creating a human network of people that share the understanding". LLM can be useful at telling a human, but you still need a human. The point of Tao is not that LLM is not good at providing explanations, it is that "providing explanations" is not the contribution to science, "the human network" is. It's like saying "LLM are great cook, they generate tons of food in space", but the point of having cooks is so that people can eat food and not die. Having LLM generating mathematical proofs is as useless as having LLM generating food that no one can access: the point was never to "generate proofs" or "generate food", the point was "creating a shared human understanding" or "eating the food so human can survive".
I don't get the argument.
I get that there is a cultural benefit to keeping it alive. Just like we ideally want the languages represented at the universities.
But keeping humans in the loop does not appear to be necessary in order to call it science, and certainly not in order to have progress or dessiminate that progress.
I don't have a problem with people doing math. As long that we don't idiomatically hold on to that way of doing things.
I do, however, find it hard to belive that individual humans will play a big role from here and forward, in any scientific desciplines.
The goal is indeed to have progress or disseminate that progress.
The point of Tao is that people see LLM providing "proofs" and are concluding that this is all that is needed to "have progress or disseminate that progress". That is the same mistake of thinking that "generating food" is all that is needed to "have people not dying of hunger".
The hard part of "have progress or disseminate that progress" is the human network. A fundamental point of this human network is that it generate trust, accountability and reliability. Generating "useful new theorem" is useless unless the society also built the trust around the theorem to distinguish it from a fake theorem.
Maybe in the future, we will have AI doing some part of it, but this is a totally different AI animal than the one we are able to have now, and people who think the current AI that we see now is able to do that have no understanding how it works. This is demonstrated by the facts in math: current AI is able to provide math proofs, and yet, a lot of human work is still needed to get progress out of current AI.
I would not bet that individual humans will still play a role as big as today in the future. Maybe AI will be different in the future, but the reality is that we don't have any indication if this is even possible.
Why is there a cultural benefit to keeping it alive, or to having universities? It seems like education is toil that could be automated for those that don't have fun with it.
Humans soon won't need it.