Comment by pegasus

Comment by pegasus 21 hours ago

4 replies

Einstein is chosen in such contexts because he's the paradigmatic paradigm-shifter. Basically, what you're saying is: "I don't know enough history of science to confirm this incredibly high opinion on Einstein's achievements. It could just be that everyone's been wrong about him, and if I'd really get down and dirty, and learn the facts at hand, I might even prove it." Einstein is chosen to avoid exactly this kind of nit-picking.

Shorel 20 hours ago

They can also choose Euler or Gauss.

These two are so above everyone else in the mathematical world that most people would struggle for weeks or even months to understand something they did in a couple of minutes.

There's no "get down and dirty" shortcut with them =)

feanaro 17 hours ago

No, by saying this, I am not downplaying Einstein's sizeable achievements nor trying to imply everyone was wrong about him. His was an impressive breadth of knowledge and mathematical prowess and there's no denying this.

However, what I'm saying is not mere nitpicking either. It is precisely because of my belief in Einstein's extraordinary abilities that I find it unconvincing that an LLM being able to recombine the extant written physics-related building blocks of 1900, with its practically infinite reading speed, necessarily demonstrates comparable capabilities to Einstein.

The essence of the question is this: would Einstein, having been granted eternal youth and a neverending source of data on physical phenomena, be able to innovate forever? Would an LLM?

My position is that even if an LLM is able to synthesise special relativity given 1900 knowledge, this doesn't necessarily mean that a positive answer to the first question implies a positive answer to the second.

  • ubercore 6 hours ago

    Isn't it an interesting question? Wouldn't you like to know the answer? I don't think anyone is claiming anything more than an interesting thought experiment.

  • frotaur 6 hours ago

    I'm sorry, but 'not being surprised if LLMs can rederive relativity and QM from the facts available in 1900' is a pretty scalding take.

    This would absolutely be very good evidence that models can actually come up with novel, paradigm-shifting ideas. It was absolutely not obvious at that time from the existing facts, and some crazy leap of faiths needed to be taken.

    This is especially true for General Relativity, for which you had just a few mismatch in the mesurements like Mercury's precession, and where the theory almost entirely follows from thought experiments.