the framework of trying to find a formula might be a trap. Cognitive work might be fundamentally discrete, path-dependent and irreducibly multi-dimensional in a way that resists equations. Or is it?

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

as a wordmetician, i concur :)

one should not & can not

mathmetize e v e r y t h i n g❕

math doesn't need to be the goal in order to be useful. by trying to write a formula, we have to think about what the terms are; what units we use; the scaling factors etc.

is the fundamental unit of progress? words / lines of code / constraints / axioms / frameworks /

and efficient? alignment / synchronization

and what units do we use for ai? cpu hours / parameter counts / tokens

given all of this, can we say that constraints are discovered at a certain pace relative to tokens of synthetic intelligence?

that frameworks of a certain complexity require a minimum parameter count?

to circle back, it would seem that synthetic intelligence is a tool that converts energy into conceptual progress

with a potentially measurable efficiency

v challenging stuff :)

but im just thinking now that math itself should never be a goal, but it’s fine that people do play games of math for fun.

and i like how ai makes research, other work so fast and easy.

who knows & how could we possibly tell from here if all or any of the ai’s are on a good path for an actually better future than any one with different ai’s or even none at all.

i dunno too much about all of ai, but the pace of it definitely scares and worries me…🥲

it seems too frenzied. how could the best insights be had like this?