An infinite joke: How math is bigger than AI | Hacker News Reader

An infinite joke: How math is bigger than AI

medium.com

2 pointsIFC_LLC5 comments

An article about infinite math and finite LLMs and how our imagination is still infinite.

This has the depth of a reflection pool. It just sounds good to people who already believe such things.

What makes the number of things a humans solely the bearer of infinite ideation when our brains already not all that significantly different? LLMs and other AI are already sharing some similarities to our brains, more every day.

The “finite” limitations of AI are due to lack of solutions in ideation and creativity, not the inability for it to have the potential. Saying an LLM can’t achieve this is like judging the intelligence of humans based on someone who is missing half a brain.

The universe doesn’t allow for infinity? What? A simple question then: when are you no longer able to divide a segment of time in two? How many numbers are there in Pi? How far away is the edge of the Universe? Half way through, the contradictions start.

Sorry, but this entire thing fees like something my dad would send me after figuring out how smart his ideas are because the LLM agreed with him. (And he is a fairly smart person.)

It would also help if it wasn’t clearly written with the assistance of GPT.

Now, here is one thing that I want to contest here. And this is about the numbers of Pi. The "Universe" have no idea about the numbers of Pi, because Pi is just an artificial construct created by humans. From the viewpoint of the Universe, there are no numbers in Pi. Pi exists in the way it exists only because we have created 10-base numbering system that we are trying to impose on the Universe.

Again, there is no reason we use 10-base, but the amount of fingers, which is a completely arbitrary number. We could as easily create a base-π numbering system where π equals 10 in this case.

The idea of dividing time runs into Plank's constant. Time itself can be captured only on the basis of observing some sort of motion. Thus, when you divide the time to the minimum quant of time, which is to say, the time that takes light to pass the Plank's constant length, you have it. There isn't any more "divisibility" of time.

And again, we are here just because we have math. There is a minimum quant of time, yet math allows us to continue dividing it beyond that constant.

Thus far, pretty much the only "Unknown" we have is a singularity, but give it some time, I'm sure when we inspect it much more, we'll figure it out.

The text was not in fact written by GPT. Yet, I've used GPT to check grammar and other errors.

Pi is a placeholder that attempts to describe something indescribable; and yet, it is the best way we can describe something infinite in a finite way. You are definitely correct that our number system could be anything else because it is arbitrary. In a base-pi number system, the ratio would be 1, not 10.

The Planck scale is not a limit on the universe, it is where the mathematics we use to describe the universe break down. Again, it is infinite complexity attempting to be described with a finite system. Math does not prevent a smaller time segment from existing in the universe…

As for the unknown, sorry my friend but this also is incorrect. There is a significant amount about the universe that is still unknown, including whether singularities even exist.

Regarding GPT, that may have been the intention, but it doesn’t necessarily look like that in effect. If that were the case, I wouldn’t be able to tell you it was. I’m not one of those silly GPT haters. I don’t have a problem with the use of GPT, it was simply the humor in the juxtaposition of the claim that humans are infinitely more creative than LLMs, while using LLMs to aid in creative writing for a short format blog post. Nothing more.

Uff, dunno where to start even: I think as a transcendent number π cannot have a finite expansion like 10 in any base, then it would be rational. But that is not so important. I think in your argumentation you are mixing to things.

The finiteness of everything, our world and the universe: That was also something that struck me, and made me disbelief in God which is said to be infinite and perfect. It's an undeniable observation - see also how Aristotle was to deny the existence of actual infinity and only allow potential infinity, which was only lately challenged by Cantor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_and_potential_infinity) You seem to use this as an argument, that our mental world is.. infinitely more than our physical. So you advocate some kind of dualism and claim that LLM never will have access to our mental world?

Idk, this "mental world", amazing as it is, is clearly powered by our physical body.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com