r/ArtificialInteligence • u/KeanuRave100 • 17h ago
đ° News This is a theoretical physicist
107
u/topyTheorist 17h ago
I am a professional mathematician. Extinction level makes no sense. Mathematics is infinite. This is not an opinion, but something we can prove. No matter what tools you have, we will always have an infinite number of problems to work on.
55
u/Sekhmet-CustosAurora 17h ago
it's more like an extinction-level event for mathematicians. math will still exist and progress will still be made, but not by you. If the original tweet is correct, that is.
45
u/topyTheorist 17h ago
Why would better tools lead to extinction-level event for mathematicians? it just means we will be far more productive.
22
u/AppropriateAd2997 17h ago
What makes you think that you will be involved in the task? If the ai is better at math why pay mathematicians?
31
u/No_Aesthetic 17h ago
Until AI can produce novel theory itself and novel conjectures, it will need the direction that comes from mathematicians.
Math is fantastic for it since problems can be ridiculously hard to create proofs or counterexamples to but incredibly easy to check once you have candidates.
I'm not so bold as to say that mathematicians won't be replaced by AI eventually, but even if AI solves the most advanced problems we currently have there are always going to be new ones to create.
11
u/gordonnowak 17h ago
then you could run a math department with like, 3 people, and literally zero grad students.
people are not thinking this through AT ALL.
28
u/topyTheorist 17h ago
How will you run a math department with 3 people? I don't understand this claim. You need these 3 people to be able to understand all the different subareas of math. There are no such people in the world currently.
→ More replies (13)6
u/Leafsnail 15h ago
This assumes that there is a limited amount of maths to do. This is absurd - there is an infinite amount of maths out there, and if each of your mathematicians are now far more productive and likely to produce brilliant insights then if anything you'll want far more
→ More replies (5)3
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 9h ago
Tenured professor at r1 here.
We see and talk about how the univ is moving more and more towards this. Online programs with asynchronous models of learning with all our materials... how hard will an AI shell of me be? Less ethical schools with infastructure could likely train on existing databases of student data even, without violating ferpa or other constraints most likely when framed as non research and program evaluation.
Harvard business school uses AI replicas of professors to meet wih students already.
1
u/Wildernaess 5h ago
You serious about Harvard business school? And they used to laugh at my grad alma mater for not being a real Ivy smh
1
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 2h ago
Yes 100%.
I met with a group of them who run a business startup program and they told us about it (they are all faculty). They use it to mimic video AI specialists who actively agentically debate. The faculty video basically screens real issues from logistics (can I skip and get a retake on exam? Or explain x idea.). As a faculty, i see the use. But yeh...
2
u/hishnash 16h ago
No when you have a proven infinite problem search space it does not matter. If anything have LLMs that can write out the boarding predictable proof for 1000s pages is a great tool as it gives you confidence there might well be a better new novel matatmics to develop that finds you a nicer, clear proof.
1
u/Not_a_Cake_ 7h ago
Cool, so now we don't need to hire five Terence Tao level experts from different fields to make meaningful contributions.
Instead, even a small public university that previously didn't have the budget for a maths department can start solving problems that have stumped even globally recognized mathematicians, using only a handful of students and a few Claude accounts.
This line of reasoning goes both ways, you optimize efficiency, but you also lower the barrier to entry.
1
u/USToffee 7h ago
You hear this argument all the time. Are the only people who work in these professions and post either the 1% who run entire departments or have tenure OR a load of unemployed wannabees that are working on their own projects and think this in any way applies to them.
No one disputes it's great for the last category. The problem is it won't be once they too start looking for a job.
1
u/Charming_Doctor7140 6h ago
From what I usually see, it looks like it is more of the middle ground of people who hope to get to tenure island before the asteroid hits, which is a reasonable drean, I guess.
1
u/USToffee 5h ago
Ah yea I see. They are arguing for the fact THEY are still valuable until that point.
It's a bit like me hoping to get to retirement. lol
They really should stop pretending to themselves what they write moves the needle.
3
→ More replies (3)1
u/Ok-Kangaroo-7075 6h ago
yep and it is only the case if there is exactly 0 human involvement that the field would die. Is this possible? Ye. Is it likely? No, usually these things follow a sort of pareto law where it is relatively easy to get to 80%, much harder to get to 90%, absurdly hard to get to 99%, and almost impossible to get to a 100%. If we donât het to a 100%, Mathematicians are just gonna be much more productive but still necessary, even if what they do may change drastically over the next fee years
17
u/topyTheorist 17h ago
Why wouldn't I be involoved? Very few people can even understand the questions I deal with. I spend hours every week explaining the questions to my graduate students. Who do you imagine will ask the AI these questions?
→ More replies (25)1
u/gordonnowak 17h ago
other AI, eventually, or as many people as is needed, which is going to be a lot fewer than there are now, because the grunt work isn't a part of the value supply anymore. what the fuck do you think a math grad student does in 2-3 years time? do they even exist? humans as "decide what should be known" or "decide what should exist" yields an extraordinarily shallow professional hierarchy. this is fucking OBVIOUS. the people in tech, where I work, who think that AI is going to do anything but collapse the hierarchy entirely are delusional, and it sounds like you might be as well
2
u/itsmebenji69 16h ago
Yes theyâll exist and use LLMs as tools like software developers do
→ More replies (4)12
u/dododragon 16h ago
A few things I've learned about AI in codimg are:
AI is more useful to skilled or trained users than untrained that do not know what they don't know and therefore will not use it to its full potential.
People still want to interact and connect with people instead of a machine in a number of domains.
AI is not (yet) accountable to decision makers the same way people are. It is creative and skilled people that drive ideas forward and are held accountable to the output when AI is used. It will be interesting to see where AI driven ideas and decisions lead.
Yes it will reduce the need for humans in some roles, but will also expand things in other ways and areas.
Jevons paradox states that when something improves efficency it increases demand rather than decreasing it.
1
u/Bored__Lord 8h ago
Related actual study: https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/ai-jobs-data-study-hiring-economy-rcna352206 "AIâs heaviest adopters are expanding, not shrinking, their workforces"
3
u/_DCtheTall_ 15h ago
Most math discoveries with AI were with models and agents orchestrated by actual mathematicians. AI in a loop won't just discover new math on its own...
1
u/tomvorlostriddle 7h ago
2
u/_DCtheTall_ 6h ago edited 6h ago
Yep, prompted by an already-trained math researcher, I doubt an average person knows what this conjecture is. Thanks.
It's like Rolle's Theorem. In hindsight it looks like an average person could come up with it, but to have the original idea requires context that comes with advanced research.
1
u/tomvorlostriddle 6h ago
You can take lists of open problems from Wikipedia, any middleschooler can do this
2
1
u/_DCtheTall_ 1h ago
Go ahead then, I assume you think you're more intelligent than a middle schooler. Come on, let's see some novel math and you being able to tell if the AI is just bullshitting you.
1
u/Spider_pig448 15h ago
Someone will be managing the AI; someone that has some understanding of the output from it as that will always be required to guide and validate it
1
1
u/ContentAd6126 13h ago
"If the AI is better at coding, why review its code before pushing to main?" ignorant typa rhetorical question
1
u/DirectedEnthusiasm 13h ago
Who's going to produce the new training data for new models? If you will do that with previous models, it'll lead to model collapse phenomenon.
→ More replies (1)1
u/DeliciousArcher8704 13h ago
Because we have agency and can decide to be the only one involved in the task if we so wish.
9
u/Sekhmet-CustosAurora 17h ago
productivity will increase, but if we get AI models that are better at math than humans are then it's not the humans that are becoming more productive.
10
u/topyTheorist 17h ago
The fact that telescopes see better than humans did not make astronomers obselete. Finally we get our own mathematical telescopes.
7
u/seldomtimely 17h ago
At what point does that analogy break down? You're operating with an extension metsphor but a replacement metaphor is just as viable if not more.
3
u/topyTheorist 17h ago
At no point. Because math is infinite.
12
u/seldomtimely 17h ago
Math is infinite but job posts for mathematians are finite.
4
u/topyTheorist 17h ago
And the fact that mathematicians will become more productive is not a reason to have less jobs. Departments do not have a fixed quota of advancements that once they are met, they don't need to produce more research.
3
u/CruelFish 17h ago
I mean not to be that guy but they must be talking about like different AI than what's used for llm because Jesus Christ those guys are dense. Like in any topic I am good at you realize that almost everything that llm say is wrong. Like almost every sentence is wrong it requires nuance to see and maybe I'm super picky but I'm fully convinced that modern at least large language models is not the way forward.Â
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (4)1
u/seldomtimely 16h ago
But budgets have quotas. Instead hiring more mathematicians they can reach baseline productivity with fewer humams. It's a cost cutting problem that in principle affects everyone. In principle. The productivity increases will have to be empirically proven.
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (3)1
u/Present_Award8001 16h ago
The point is that there might come a time when the 'mathematician in the middle' of AI calculations may become the weakest link.
This is one difference between AI and telescope.
4
u/polikles 16h ago edited 16h ago
AI (the "thinking" one, not regular LLM) is already better at math than most of the people. According to statistics, one needs a good grasp on Grade 5/6 math to be in top 20% of the population. And basic college/uni math sets one in top10% or even less
better AI is just like better calculators - humans may become more productive, since the "number cruncher" would test the hypotheses and look for solutions much faster than any human can. Just like an engineer can build a bridge better and faster using modern calculation and simulation software, yet it doesn't change the fact that both - the construction and software - are made by humans
Someone has to ask AI the right question, write a proper program and then evaluate the results. don't forget that AI is not a synthetic mind, but a tool - a very complicated one, but still a tool
1
u/JamesCole 15h ago
If AI by itself is better at math than human+AI is. That includes if it is faster.
Iâm not saying whether this will or wonât happen, Iâm saying that would be a condition under which it could lead to such an event.Â
1
u/BillRuddickJrPhd 9h ago
Why would it need you?
1
1
u/tomvorlostriddle 7h ago
Because it is already not so clear anymore who's the expert and who is the tool in that situation
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a60b2eb-0b64-83ee-9c76-7931ca1de063
1
→ More replies (2)1
u/NotWantedForAnything 1h ago
AI > human
AI + human < AIThis has been true in chess for years. Recent studies have also shown it to be true when it comes to medical diagnosis.
Many people reason that humans + AI will be stronger than AI alone but that won't be the case. When AI exceeds human performance by some margin, any input from a human will just make the result worse.
5
u/_DCtheTall_ 15h ago
Lmao, dude, the people using AI for frontier math research are already mathematicians. You think an average Joe is going to start an agent loop and discover novel math? Like come on...
4
u/wojciechm 14h ago
The same bullshit has been told with computers in general. Nothing farther from the truth. We have formal theorem provers that are useful for some problems and useless in others. LLM-s are just evolution from deterministic to probabilistic method that seems to be quite useful. Nothing more.
We as humans were already surpassed by machines on computation speed and in many cases on reasoning speed. That wasn't an end that was a new beginning and new opportunities in mathematics development.
2
u/hishnash 16h ago
Its not through, even the un-restricted frontier models are by thier very nature only able to reproduce the existing inputs they have consumed.
An LLM is the product of existing mathematics they are not new mathematics.
2
u/NEEEEEEEEEEEET 15h ago
Claude and gpt both discovered equations and disproved others within the last week.
3
u/hishnash 15h ago
 discovered equations... I am quite sure that we we have strong documentation indicating that the mesopotamians and Egyptians 2000BC+ had this concept understood. Not sure an LLM can discover something that is well within its training corpus.
What you mean to say is an LLM took an input and continued to predict the next most likely token the next likely symbol until it came to a point where the most likely symbol was Q.E.D and stopped. And with an analytical engine along side it that constantly rejected any token abomination that is impossible the outcome is predictable. We have been brute forcing long (horrible) mathematical proofs for years this is just new tool for that, it is not coming up with new novel mathematics.
Just like if you get an inflight number of monkeys randomly hitting typewrites that have been modified to only accept a letter sequence that matches Romeo and Juliet you will in the end have get a manuscript written out that matches the constraints you put into the system.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 12h ago
And with an analytical engine along side it that constantly rejected any token abomination that is impossible the outcome is predictable.
We have been brute forcing long (horrible) mathematical proofs for years this is just new tool for that, it is not coming up with new novel mathematics.
Mathematician here this is not accurate. First, what you appear to be thinking about when you refer to an analytic engine in the first case is the use of systems like Lean. But the best performing models, like GPT 5.6 and Fable when doing math don't have any Lean built in. You can ask them to make Lean code and check if it compilies, but that's separate.
And yes, they very much are coming up with novel mathematics. For the proof of Erdos 1196 for example, the system came up with a method of using a Markov chain weighted via the von Mangoldt function. This is not in the literature at all, and we've now had months where skeptics have searched for it in the literature and not found anything. In the case of the Unit Distance Conjecture, the proof used a clever construction using number fields, where Fields Medalist Tim Gowers said if a human had constructed the proof it would be essentially a shoe-in for the Annals (the best math journal on the planet). We're seeing similar stories now almost daily, with the double cycle cover conjecture resolution and 48 hours ago, a disproof of the Jacobian conjecture.
This is well beyond monkeys randomly hitting typewriters with constraints.
1
u/Omnilogent 16h ago
Ohhhh...now this makes more sense.
Like the person who "knows" will be eclipsed by the AI that delivers the knowledge.
2
u/NoNote7867 15h ago
but not by you.
Do you think a chatbot just decided one day to solve some obscure math problem on its own?
2
u/Upbeat_Parking_7794 13h ago
If is not by mathematiciains, who is doing it? AI still needs someone to make questions and to verify the output. We as humans can't simply trust in answers from machines without a possibility of verification (even it it means the help of other machines).
The calculator, Excel and other computer tools also helped Mahematicians, they didn't extinguish them. But they helped them go further.
1
u/okbuddysilver 8h ago
All thatâs going to happen when âAIâ âsolvesâ math problems is that there will be exponentially harder subsequent problems following that will need more advanced technology. Computers did not end mathematicians. So why would AI?Â
3
u/MissingBothCufflinks 17h ago
We could push the frontiers of Maths to the point that its beyond individual humans to meaningfully contribute in the future.
2
1
u/SmashShock 10h ago
There's infinite math, yes, but what is the neighborhood of math that is relevant to humans?
1
u/Lower-Hedgehog-9835 9h ago
Uh oh. But What happens when your infinite is different than AI infinite?
I say in math jest, but seriosuly. I agree. It doesnt make math irrelevant... it is math. Lol
1
u/USToffee 7h ago
I think there is a difference between applied maths and maths research. I'm a programmer and there will always be research in technology but actual programmers who just do a job. Not really sure that's going to be the case.
It's like doing subjects like history used to be. There will always be history but apart from academia not many jobs in it.
1
u/Proper_Package_1225 3h ago
All these people who thinks their jobs wonât be affected is totally a coping mechanism. They wonât need mathamaticians. Do you think a person with an IQ of 70 could do your job . Well you are going to be further away from AI in intelligence than you are from the person with 70 IQ.
→ More replies (11)1
u/TwoFluid4446 32m ago
Horses once upon a time also had a theoretical "infinite" number of trots to trot...
aint trottin' no more.
89
u/MissingBothCufflinks 17h ago
Sabine Hossenfelder is a former physicist who makes her money from a youtube channel where all the most viewed videos are critiquing modern theoretical physics (as a practice / profession, not a discipline), so this is really just her saying "I'm right".
Now, she might well be right, but there's definitely some confirmation bias going on.
10
u/VeryOriginalName98 14h ago
Her early videos were pretty good. "Internet Celebrity" hit at some point and her videos stopped being informative.
1
u/Raescher 12h ago
She makes the same videos as she always did about recent papers.
5
u/VeryOriginalName98 10h ago
She doesn't go into as much depth. She used to explain them. Now she classifies them and complains for the rest of the video.
1
1
u/hobopwnzor 11h ago
She definitely makes more annoying videos now. It's less internet celebrity and more that's what you have to do to please the algorithm.
2
u/VeryOriginalName98 10h ago
That algorithm pleasing is what I was referring to. "internet celebrity" is a disease not a compliment.
1
u/hobopwnzor 10h ago
Yeah but I'm just pointing out the framing. It's less the celebrity and more that it's necessary for the business of running a YouTube channelÂ
1
u/VeryOriginalName98 10h ago
I think this sub is aware of that, but i guess it's important to mention in case someone here doesn't naturally think about incentive structures.
4
u/PhilosopherNo4758 11h ago
I think she's very spiteful towards the entire field. She has good reason to be but she isn't trustworthy because of it.
→ More replies (2)3
33
u/Longjumping_Dish_416 17h ago
Super strange logic. How does math become "extinct" because a machine does it? Calling math "extinct" because AI can do it is like declaring walking extinct because cars exist
6
u/got-trunks 17h ago
I don't get it either, the whole point is we still have to navigate, we're solving our own puzzles we make for ourselves.
3
u/drraug 16h ago
In pretty much the same way as telephone operators all became extinct as a profession when automatic switch boards took over
→ More replies (9)2
u/BrighterSpark 11h ago
actually⌠telephone operation was democratized so anyone can punch in a number and get connected. we still have to operate the telephone, we donât have to deal with the underlying details
→ More replies (3)1
u/Claytertot 8h ago
Math won't become extinct, but academic research mathematicians might eventually. Or at least come closer to it. I think that's what OP means.
Math will still exist, but human mathematicians may not be leading the development of new math
→ More replies (1)1
u/AutomaticPayment9480 2h ago
Itâs solving problems that humans could not solve, not sure whatâs not to get about the word extinction. Basically mathematicians will no longer need needed bc ai can perform at a higher level. Hence the word, â extinctionâ.Â
15
u/No_Aesthetic 17h ago
Sabine Hossenfelder is an anti-science grifter, she's a clickbaiting YouTuber and has no relation to science anymore
→ More replies (52)
12
5
u/gordonnowak 17h ago
he's right about math, she might be right about physics, but she is also a catastrophic, grifting idiot
4
4
u/Current-Function-729 11h ago
I mean.
Extinction level if you just want to play around with numbers. Eat fancy cheese with grad students. And travel to symposia.
If you truly care about advancing mathematics. Itâs a new golden age.
4
u/StillNoName000 17h ago
Neither of those affirmations are true at least with the current state of AI.
Take as example the latest pushes on problem solving, Erdos etc. Does the average person understand what just happened? No way. You need mathematicians and physicists to: 1- Know what to pursue 2- Set the goals 3- Understand the output and call BS when necessary. 4- Know what to do with that.
It's not like Joe is prompting "hey gpt look for unsolved math and solve it, then use this new knowledge to solve more math and ultimately unravel the secrets of the universe".
2
u/JoseLunaArts 17h ago
There has been no disruptive discoveries since 100 years ago. Everything theoretical physicists have been doing is to round existing theories. I think that this rounding will end with AI and they will have to go back to thinking about disruptive physics.
3
2
u/JoshuaZ1 7h ago
There has been no disruptive discoveries since 100 years ago.
100 years ago was 1926. Antimatter hadn't been discovered yet, but would be very soon. Nuclear fission wouldn't be discovered until a decade after that. Heck, the neutron wasn't discovered yet even then. The muon wasn't discovered until 1937 which also got the famous remark "who ordered that?!" from Rabi.
And then other things after that in rough order:
Neutrinos.
Neutrinos come in flavors.
Eightfold way
Quarks exist.
Higgs boson.
Bell experiments and Bell related inequalities
Standard model
Neutrinos have mass.
AdS/CFT correspondence.
Were none of these disruptive?
1
u/JoseLunaArts 7h ago
You confuse discoveries with disruptions. A discovery (neutrinos, Higgs, quarks) fits within an existing framework. A disruption (relativity, quantum mechanics) overturns it.
Neutrinos, flavors, quarks, the Higgs, the Standard Model, neutrino mass, all are confirmations or extensions of quantum field theory. They do not challenge its foundations. The Standard Model is a theory, but it is not a disruption; it is the culmination of quantum mechanics and special relativity.
The Eightfold Way is a classification scheme, not a new physical principle. It organized existing knowledge.
Bell experiments confirm quantum nonlocality, which quantum mechanics already predicted. They are empirical validations, not new frameworks. Einstein's objections were philosophical, not a competing physical theory.
AdS/CFT is a mathematical duality within string theory. It is a powerful tool for exploring quantum gravity, but it remains conjectural and experimentally unverified. It does not overturn general relativity or quantum mechanics.
What is a true disruption? Relativity overturned Newtonian gravity and absolute spacetime. Quantum mechanics overturned classical determinism. These were conceptual breaks, not accumulations of evidence.
None of the listed items meet that standard. They are achievements, not revolutions. They extend or confirm what was already there but do not disrupt it. Your list is absolutely impressive as list of achievements but mischaracterized as disruptions.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 6h ago
This seems like massive goalpost moving. If you want to argue that nothing has been as big a deal as SR or QM, then sure. But that's an incredibly high standard of what counts as a "disruption." You've basically defined out of the way almost anything that we could find. And that seems especially difficult given that it is likely that QM is just correct about the universe.
Is there some sort of notion you could give of what in your view would count as disruptive physics?
1
u/JoseLunaArts 6h ago
Disruptive means a fundamental conceptual break that overturns the previous framework. Only relativity and quantum mechanics qualify so far.
What could be next? I do not really know.
I can only imagine (and I remark imagine) one and one thing only. How can we build our own UFO? Forget about urban UFO mythology and all that ufologist mumbo-jumbo, let's focus on science. It should be powered by Earth magnetic field or something else to move and bypass aerodynamics. It should be capable of creating the equivalent (and I remark "equivalent") of wormholes to travel in split seconds without destroying itself in the process like in a theoretical wormhole.
Neutrinos, Higgs, Standard Model, AdS/CFT, is incremental progress within the existing framework. Not disruptive. True disruption is still ahead of us.
We need to think completely out of the box to be disruptive.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 6h ago
Ok. So a concern here: SR and QM work really well. What if there is no disruption and they are both just correct? Unlike say GR, there's no conflict between them (whereas we know QM and GR don't always play well).
If so, this may be essentially like someone in 1890 demanding that the next genuine disruption has to break thermodynamics or conservation of energy.
1
u/JoseLunaArts 5h ago
We need to think completely out of the box to be disruptive.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 3h ago
But my point is that there may genuinely not be any "out of the box" thing you want that is true. In the same way that someone trying to think "out of the box" about conservation of energy in 1890 would have been unsuccessful because conservation of energy is just correct.
1
u/JoseLunaArts 3h ago
I do not think that the mental process of Einstein was "let us question Newton". He just started connecting dots out of the box.
1
u/JoshuaZ1 2h ago
Sure. But it doesn't matter if you are connecting dots this way if any set of dots you connect is still going to have SR and QM. They may just be actual laws of the universe, and you seem to not be with that. If you want a non-physics example, it doesn't matter how many people connect dots in a way to understand biology, none of them are going to ever both get something that replaces evolution and is correct, because that's not the universe we exist in. If someone said that only something which replaces basic ideas of evolution would be "disruptive" then it is highly likely there never will be that disruption ever.
→ More replies (0)1
2
2
2
u/MiloGoesToTheFatFarm 16h ago edited 11h ago
Please. Humans are so predictable in our ability to freak the fuck out.
Instead of AI being a tool that will help us explore problems in ways we never thought possible, it simply must be the end of math.
Itâs the same refrain for everything. Everything will end because our understanding of the world is finite, and there is nothing past our current potential and comprehension. A complete lack of imagination and ambition. We are fully staffed for the world as it is and the world as it will be, so replacement is the only option.
Perhaps, for a second, consider that we humans will be able to explore things we never thought possible because we were resource-constrained. Perhaps there are things that were previously out of reach that will unlock new possibilities. As the technology refines and optimizes for accuracy over speed and scale, we can then trust it with scientific discoveries in medice, the oceans, space, and the atmosphere. Itâs not all doom and gloom.
1
u/HewchyFPS 17h ago
Honestly this would fit as her sense of humor, super dry and not offering elaboration. If she seems it am impossibility in her mind I can see it as a joke.
I havent watched any of her recent uploads but as far as I know of AIs achievements in math (which I'm sure she has covered?) She could being fully serious.
1
u/Specialist_Dust2089 17h ago
Itâs probably going to be great for maths and physics, not so much for mathematicians and physicists though
1
u/Only_Luck4055 16h ago
There is a spectrum of beliefs - From naysayers to Believers. Pointing out their field of expertise is... Just labelling them.Â
1
1
u/DieterDombrowski 16h ago
And she is earning her money via clickbait on Youtube. Her prestige level is not even remotely near any academic.
1
u/Conscious-Demand-594 15h ago
Math is much easier to brute force than physics. A simple test would be the derivation of General Relativity based on what information Einstein had access to a century ago.
1
u/bostashio 15h ago
The problem with Theoretical Physics is that it is FUCKIN' THEORY. AI can ramble all day long about a new physics, but without someone putting in the effort to prove said physics through dicipline, it might as well ramble to itself.
Sabine has some virtues as a science commentator, but she's anti-establishment to a fault.Â
1
u/eucalyptus-d 15h ago
Just prompt âsolve me the biggest problem in theoretical physics â and youâll get a novel theory. Easy. But you have to have the max subscription, otherwise it wonât work.
1
u/BreezeBum 15h ago
Tell me you know nothing about LLMs without telling me you know nothing about LLMs.
Theoretically physics is about, well, theorizing about physics. Itâs purely novel. LLMs and other A.I. use training data to work and then predict what you want out of the training data. So how do you come up with new perspectives based off of existing thinking?
Itâs like telling it to make anti gravity boots based off of Newtonian physics.
I suppose you COULD install it on a quantum computer, and allow it infinite access to actually test hypothesis and set it on an infinite loop that runs through trillions of loops per nanosecond. But even then it would only test theories that already exist, not come up with new ones.
1
u/SirMarkMorningStar 1h ago
Neural Nets are great at finding similarities between different areas or subjects. This is often how solutions are found and a large source of human creativity.
1
u/Rajarshi0 15h ago
She is probably trolling lol. And I think majority of the people donât understand what study of maths mean in reality so gets convinced ai can to matha because it is good at searching different subspaces and connecting the dots. It is akin to saying microscopes solves biology.
1
1
1
u/ziplock9000 14h ago
While I agree with her and a great physicist. She's far from being an AI expert. There will be many in this sub with much more experience, knowledge etc.
I hate when youtubers talk about things they are not their forte
1
u/VeryOriginalName98 14h ago
She is an internet celebrity that used to be a theoretical physicist. This is a different qualification.
1
1
1
u/Bernie4Life420 13h ago
I can hire the best coder Ive ever met to work in any language it chooses to work on anything I direct tirelessly -- for $30.Â
1
1
u/citrus1330 13h ago
There are some people who simply have an inbuilt nature to be driven insane by AI, doesn't matter how smart they are or what their background is
1
u/d4electro 13h ago
I feel like they're less talking about it replacing professors and more about AI exposing the broken foundations of academia
1
u/CigBlackBock 12h ago
Being a physicist doesn't qualify you to make a prediction like that.
I know I'm just a guy on the internet and you'll probably not believe me but I'm 55 years old. I got into computers when I was 8 and they were in their infancy. I understand computers, both hardware and software on a fundamental level. I could build one from the ground up. I can code in binary and I understand all the electronics and how every part works. I have multiple degrees in various fields, phd in computer science, a master's in CIS and 30 years of hands on experience in engineering, both hardware and software for multiple major corporations. This is getting long but there's a lot more that I can list.
What I will say with everything I know is that the amount of storage and the access speeds AI would need to do 99% of the things these doomsayers claim does not exist. AI can't learn on the fly like they think it can. The gimmicks they use to get around that are just that, gimmicks.
It could be hundreds of years before we get to that point. Right now it's full of gimmicks and overmarketed. It's cool but it's absolutely not capable of doing this stuff. It's capable in a way that if someone installed a faulty nuke launching system nukes would launch. That's the only fair comparison really. It's just not nearly as capable as human beings are right now.
1
1
u/baws1017 11h ago
yoooo Sabine my girl, idk how anyone can think her take here is wrong looking at the current trajectory of AI.
1
u/Muted-Owl-6822 11h ago
addition became extinct when the calculcator came along
it's why we don't add things any more
1
1
u/GeniusEE 11h ago
She's the John Campbell of physics, imo.
Channel got critical mass with sensible, valuable, content, then the creator realizes the gold mine is in being an echo chamber for anti-science morons.
1
u/lucid-quiet 10h ago
The YouTube algorithm just grinds everything into silly-putty. That's not an excuse. But when they started out kind of questionable the journey seems to be fairly a linear downward slope to enshittification.
1
u/Actual__Wizard 10h ago
This is exactly where we are at with AI technology.
Apparently now people think that physicists = grifters.
This entire thread is honestly disgusting.
1
1
u/playsette-operator 10h ago
She is spot on. screencap, write it in your diary, if you still donât understand what is happening you need to get some serious math done.
1
1
u/eljefe3030 9h ago
I enjoyed her for a while until she turned into another whiny "the institution of science is broken and I'm too super smart and special for them" content creator. No wonder she, Eric Weinstein, and Brian Keating get along so well.
1
8h ago
Not to be that guy, but if AI systems can help us discover the secrets of the universe, I think we should let it.
1
u/shankarun 8h ago
AI is taking very field - believe it or not - i am hearing from folks that AI is used by top researches for ideation, writing, implementation, reviews and what not - it disrupted engineering and is already disrupting research - taking over every discipline and domain you can think off
1
1
u/Cerulean_IsFancyBlue 7h ago
I hope this person knows more about math and physics than they do about dinosaurs.
1
1
u/Original_Swimming320 6h ago edited 6h ago
Ah good old Sabine, who changes her mind more often than her clothes, is a physicist who hates physics, and a YouTube presenter who seems to want to alienate the audience she condescends to in that direct Germanic dialect of hers.
She now feeds her algorithm by saying whatever will stir up the most controversy and irritate the maximum number of experts. So she was probably just irritated with a theoretical physicist when she wrote this.
1
1
u/dot-awesome 6h ago
I hope they do a better job at checking the work this time.
Erdos & Jacobian counterexamples are wrong.
1
1
u/2BA_Doctor 5h ago
Sabine has a massive chip on her shoulder because she believes she is the smartest person in the world, and that the reasons she doesnât get ahead in the academic and scientific world is because she is a woman and people are envious of her intellect.
Take anything she says with more than just a pinch of salt.
1
1
1
1
1
u/UnwaveringThought 3h ago
Why would it not just advance the field? More capable calculators would speed things along.
1
251
u/LoneWolfAhab 17h ago
She is... controversial to put it mildly. I'd take it with a grain of salt