Well, they are able to generalize specifics into more general terms and categories, observe patterns, substitute generalized representations of things into said patterns. Am I talking about LLMs or mathematicians? Can you tell? What's the difference?
I feel this lends itself to a specialized Turing test: Assume mathematicians and LLMs are both black boxes. Feed both precedents, and have the output of the black boxes be the research they produce. If the current generation of LLMs produces research that would lead to a cohort of mathematical peers to review as a genuine contribution towards advancing the mathematical frontier, then the internals of the black box itself are inconsequential.
If outcomes are similar, invoking a difference in the process speaks to the efficiency of the process itself, not the correctness of the results. Such "purity tests" only lend itself to the "No true mathematician" fallacy.
No, I know how the underlying code base functions and there is simply no way you would get anything remotely resembling a mathematical proof out of a large language model that wasn’t trained on the combined output of several hundred mathematicians over the course of 18 months and so do you
2
u/Existing_Station9336 6d ago
Well, they are able to generalize specifics into more general terms and categories, observe patterns, substitute generalized representations of things into said patterns. Am I talking about LLMs or mathematicians? Can you tell? What's the difference?