Загрузка видео...

Не удалось загрузить видео

На главную

Physicist steve hsu says AI may become superhuman at math long before that translates into cures, better aircraft, or explosive economic growth: "90% of mathematicians, especially the younger ones, realize these models are extremely powerful. Just as they became superhuman in coding, they're becoming superhuman in math." "The Fields...

20,272 просмотров • 3 дней назад •via X (Twitter)

Комментарии: 8

Фото профиля melville
melville2 дней назад

@hsu_steve I don’t think this is right. Isn’t Bezos working on AI for this exact use case

Фото профиля Norman
Norman2 дней назад

@hsu_steve The most difficult problems in math are being solved not because they are hard but because they are so easy compared to everything else.

Фото профиля mirai
mirai2 дней назад

@hsu_steve He thinks his moat is very wide.

Фото профиля Austin Calvert
Austin Calvert2 дней назад

@hsu_steve So we’re just waiting for younger bright minds to prompt fields together cohesively?

Фото профиля Marcel B.
Marcel B.3 дней назад

@hsu_steve nice progress on

Фото профиля Oliver
Oliver3 дней назад

@hsu_steve @grok what r the unsolved science problems that would have a big impact on people then?

Фото профиля Ricci Research
Ricci Research2 дней назад

@hsu_steve Perfect illustration right underneath: settling whether Navier-Stokes solutions stay smooth changes nothing for the wing — Boeing's been solving it numerically for 40 years without waiting for permission from a proof.

Фото профиля mattyjags
mattyjags3 дней назад

@hsu_steve They arent powerful, they consume lots of power. Big difference

Похожие видео

Several years ago, Peter Thiel shocked many people by telling Tyler Cowen he had it backwards: AI would be worse for math people than for wordcels. Tyler Cowen: “Large language models are already quite powerful. They’re only going to get better. In this world to come, will the wordcels just lose their influence? People who write, people who play around with ideas, pundits — are they just toast?” Peter Thiel: “My intuition would be it's going to be quite the opposite, where it seems much worse for the math people than the word people. What people have told me is that they think within three to five years, the Al models will be able to solve all the US Math Olympiad problems. That would shift things quite a bit. There's a longer history I always have on the math versus verbal riff. If you ask, "When did our society bias to testing people more for math ability?" I believe it was during the French Revolution because it was believed that verbal ability ran in families. Math ability was distributed in this idiot savant way throughout the population. If we prioritized math ability, it had this meritocratic but also egalitarian effect on society. Then, I think, by the time you get to the Soviet Union, Soviet Communism in the 20th century, where you give a number theorist or chess grandmaster a medal-which was always a part I was somewhat sympathetic to in the Soviet Union— maybe it's actually just a control mechanism, where the math people are singularly clueless. They don’t understand anything, but if we put them on a pedestal, and we tell everyone else you need to be like the math person, then it’s actually a way to control. Or the chess grandmaster doesn’t understand anything about the world. That’s a way to really control things. If I fast-forwarded to, let’s say, Silicon Valley in the early 21st century, it’s way too biased toward the math people. I don’t know if it’s a French Revolution thing or a Russian-Straussian, secret-cabal, control thing where you have to prioritize it. That’s the thing that seems deeply unstable, and that’s what I would bet on getting reversed, where it’s like the place where math ability — it’s the thing that’s the test for everything. It’s like if you want to go to medical school, okay, we weed people out through physics and calculus, and I’m not sure that’s really correlated with your dexterity as a neurosurgeon. I don’t really want someone operating on my brain to be doing prime number factorizations in their head while they’re operating on my brain, or something like that. In the late ’80s, early ’90s, I had a chess bias because I was a pretty good chess player. And so my chess bias was, you should just test everyone on chess ability, and that should be the gating factor. Why even do math? Why not just chess? That got undermined by the computers in 1997. Isn’t that what’s going to happen to math? And isn’t that a long-overdue rebalancing of our society?” More in clip:

Zarathustra

141,991 просмотров • 5 дней назад

Eric Weinstein unleashes a chilling take on physics: The field froze in 1973—no meaningful change to the Lagrangian (the core mathematical engine of physics) since then, despite decades of effort. "No new ideas about how to change the Lagrangian that anybody finds exciting... Nobody goes to Stockholm to get a Nobel Prize because they changed the Lagrangian of the world." He argues a bizarre force field slams anyone exploring truly revolutionary ideas—like multiple dimensions of time or breakthroughs that could upend power balances—while physics is the only profession without full free speech. Under the "Restricted Data" doctrine (from the 1946/1954 Atomic Energy Acts & "Born Secret"), any new physics insight that might relate to nuclear weapons becomes classified the instant it's written or spoken—even if you're not in government. Violate it? You could face Espionage Act charges, potentially capital offenses. Weinstein's bet: There's no secret government physics office holding breakthroughs. Instead, smart people long ago decided open physics was too dangerous—because real advances could hand the President fusion power or worse. "The Department of Energy is really the Department of Physics... We're scared of the possibility of physics? We don't even want to talk about it." Clip from this 3:49 mind-bender—physics as the silenced superpower. Does this explain the stagnation... or is string theory just a dead-end distraction? Is physics deliberately "safe" to avoid existential risks? Your take—drop it below.

Camus

20,754 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад

Terence Tao: "Previously, you needed a PhD to contribute to math research. Now a high school student can." Dwarkesh asks the world's most famous mathematician: what's your advice for someone considering a career in math, especially in light of AI progress? Tao is honest about uncertainty: "We live in a time of change. A particularly unpredictable era. Things that we've taken for granted for centuries may not hold anymore. The way we do everything... not just mathematics... will change." He admits his preference: "In many ways, I would prefer a much more boring, quiet era where things are much the same as they were 10 or 20 years ago. But one just has to embrace this. There's going to be a lot of change. The things you study... some of them may become obsolete or revolutionized. But some things will be retained." On new opportunities: "Previously, you had to go through years and years of education and get a math PhD before you could contribute to the frontier of math research. But now it's quite possible at the high school level that you could get involved in a math project and actually make a real contribution... because of all these AI tools and Lean and everything else." His advice: "There will be a lot of non-traditional opportunities to learn. You need a very adaptable mindset. There'll be worth pursuing things just for curiosity and for playing around. Still go through traditional education and learn math and science the old-fashioned way for a while... credentials will still be important. But you should also be open to very, very different ways of doing science. Some of which don't exist yet." He concludes: "It's a scary time. But also very exciting."

Jaynit

77,698 просмотров • 4 месяцев назад

"Very often what happens is that the architects die, and they leave a zombie. We seem to be in a zombie era." The whole time I was watching the discussion between Jesse Michels and Eric Weinstein and Eric Davis, I felt like there was some darker thing lurking beneath the surface that connects the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics as a scientific discipline, the extreme secrecy surrounding the alleged UAP crash retrieval/reverse engineering program and the lack of any theoretical physicists working the problem, and the government's stated intention to control (per Marc Andreessen 🇺🇸) the future of AI -- a future where there's no point investing in AI startups because “we [the government] are going to make sure that AI is going to be a function of two or three large companies. We will directly regulate and control those companies. There will be no startups.” And there's the other part Andreessen recounted from his White House meeting. He was told by the [Biden] administration that "During the Cold War, we [the federal government] classified entire areas of physics and took them out of the research community — entire branches of physics basically went dark and didn't proceed. If we decide we need to [for AI/math], we're going to do the same thing." Take a minute and think about that, because it's actually chilling. A clear precedent has been cited here -- one none of us knew about before Andreessen brought it to our attention -- and it raises two big questions: 1) Why? 2) HOW? Weinstein returns multiple times in this episode to the diminishingly small number of people who have the capacity to operate at the highest levels of physics and math. And whenever you have a small number of people who act as the natural gating function for something incredibly powerful, it's not a leap to imagine an additional layer of control being placed on them by pressure from outside. Whether that's through legal threats like "born secret," NDAs, direct threats of physical harm, money, regulation, etc., there are ways to lock down the gatekeepers so that they never do the thing -- at least not in public -- that the most powerful people in the world don't want them to do. Weinstein kept saying, about both the seemingly intentional stagnation of physics and the lack of physicists working the UAP problem, "this makes no sense." But it does make sense if you shift the frame to, "they don't want us to find the answers and are actively trying to stop us." The feeling I kept getting as I watched this fascinating discussion was that the legacy crash retrieval program used to have a lot more direct oversight and funding decades ago, but that the compartmentalization and secrecy around it turned it into more and more of an oxbow lake, and that as it got cut off from the conventional scientific community and defense establishment, it became more secretive, less well-funded, and less coordinated. So it kind of became its own siloed-off thing that fewer and fewer people knew about, but the people who did still know protected the territory fiercely. And then came the era of AAWSAP and AATIP and UAPTF, and without the deep, secret, institutional knowledge held by members of the legacy program, they tried to piece together what had happened in the past while not being able to penetrate the sort of firewall that existed partially because of controlled secrecy, and partially because of the firewalling effect of time. They were doing a lot of cold case file work, while running into the deepest of deep state secrecy efforts. That secrecy, at least based on my reading of the situation, was instituted decades ago, when the atomic-era scientific community (mostly the same group of geniuses that were at the top of the Manhattan Project) got together and -- probably at the behest of of the US government -- decided physics was becoming too dangerous if it continued down the path that it was on. So, as my spitball theory goes, they intentionally beached the entire enterprise on the shoals of string theory and quantized gravity and all the stuff Weinstein talks about everywhere he goes -- the "dogs that won't hunt" that are also "the only game in town." The very theories that have, in the real world, run physics aground. So let's come back to Andreessen's point here: they classified entire branches of physics and took them out of the research community, while real physics went off on a wild goose chase that has yielded precious few demonstrable results in the past half century or so. The effect is that the physics community has been off the scent for so long that anyone old enough to have held the knowledge that was shoved back into Pandora's proverbial box through extreme secrecy measures is now dead. And their taking of that knowledge to the grave may well be a critical part of the secrecy effort. Dead physicists tell no tales. I have this eerie sense that we scared ourselves shitless with certain discoveries (likely knowledge that followed from nuclear physics, which is itself still highly protected and curtailed) and decided that the only way to stop our headlong rush into world-ending catastrophe was to literally bury the knowledge and wait until everyone who had it died off. The government looks, at least to me, to have cauterized a destructive branch in the scientific timeline like they were the Time Variance Authority from Marvel comics. 80 years of claimed zero-progress in reverse-engineering alleged crashed or recovered UAPs. 40+ years of dead-ended physics. Only two or three major AI companies, one of which is now in a fight to the death with the Department of War. And the rumors that AI has "plateaued" or even "dead-ended" in its progress that keep springing up has potential echoes in the AI world of physics being diverted into String Theory. I'm not a mathematician or a physicist. I can't examine all the deeper particulars because I have neither the knowledge or the training. I only have surface level pattern recognition, and that tells me it all feels connected. The problem for the gatekeepers is that you can't bury knowledge that has been discovered once indefinitely. It's certain that all of this will be figured out again. And as Weinstein pointed out about a couple of non-physicists who figured out how to piece together nuclear weapons based on declassified information and publicly available knowledge, it IS happening. But it seems that at least on the individual basis, those green shoots are being pruned. Weinstein asks why none of the people who funded his education are "interested" in his Grand Unifying Theory. Weinstein is too well-known and too well-respected to just be taken out of play. They can't buy him off. They can't make him disappear without drawing more attention. So maybe they just hope that Geometric Unity will die on its own. Maybe they are behind the attacks on GU as something totally unserious. Maybe they have found a way to make other members of the physics community willing to look away. So, my question about this larger hypothetical operation to stop dangerous science and math is this: was it really just a massive kicking of the can down the road. Did they hoped it would buy us time? And if so, to what end? What are they waiting for? Can this game really be played forever? Maybe they think it can. Maybe they have an ongoing directive to keep suppressing this knowledge for as long as possible, and perhaps there's some secret core group whose job is to be the perpetual gatekeepers of potentially civilization-ending secrets. Maybe the Epstein connection to all of this was precisely because he was part of the operation to discover who was doing forbidden work and assess their progress. Maybe that's why, when he met Weinstein, he knew so much about GU. It's impossible to say with any certainty, but as a theory, it does have some real explanatory power. I find myself thinking of the fictional Brothers of the Cruciform Sword in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade -- a small, ancient, secret society whose job it was to keep tabs on people looking for the Holy Grail and stop them, so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Are we following the same track here? Could this, as crazy as it sounds, be the missing connective tissue in this mystery?

Steve Skojec

13,976 просмотров • 6 месяцев назад