<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Dear Lou,</p>
<p>Have been meaning to respond but was busy programming (when I get
the mood it can be fun) and outings with family.</p>
<p>Consider notion of meta-AI ( defined as not only being to solve
problems created by someone else, but to create new definitions
for new concepts, to question and come up with problems that lower
level AI can solve). </p>
<p>Initially I had a similar view as you that rational thought,
deductive inference would be need to be implemented in other
complimentary modules with their own logic unlike an LLM - a
parrot that gives the illusion of thought and understanding. </p>
<p>But I am no longer so sure. <br>
</p>
<p>Note, the way you appear to define creative mathematics, there is
still a human in the loop in that defines the rules and search
space which are then given to the rational system (computer). </p>
<p>However, although we are the designers of the boundaries, frame
of reference, possibility spaces and talking points for now, LLMs
keep gaining competencies. <br>
</p>
<p>Once a meta-AI starts designing the search space and the rules,
then meta-AI systems will perhaps surpass humans in the process of
generating mathematical and scientific theories. </p>
<p>The problem will then be how to get these systems to explain what
they have created. If for example the meta-AI designs a system
based on its new theory and it works, then we may be incapable of
understanding how it works due to are limited mental capacities.
Like us trying to explain to a baboon the design of the von
Neumann computer architecture. <br>
</p>
<p>Again distinguishing between implementation-instantiation of a
system versus its functional architecture, the LLM or some form of
it with a meta-LLM that is rationally equivalent or superior to
human reasoning and creative thought may be possible. Like your
reference to number theoretic limits, it may be an empirical
question that cannot proven or intuited by deductive formal
methods let alone a priori. <br>
</p>
<p>Imagine an Artificial Spencer Brown (ASB) thought engine, surely
you can imagine that.😉</p>
<p>Best,</p>
<p>Eric<br>
</p>
<p>P.S, I do not mind being tricked into arguing with myself, as
such Socratic methods or Hegelian Dialectics leads to new
approaches quickly and meta-rationally. But I would much rather
argue with you over a beer or glass of wine. Then you may be
wondering who tricked whom. <br>
</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:59FA96D7-4FB2-4BEF-BC0A-CF469F46C8A0@gmail.com">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">(I am sending this again with message body made small.)
Dear Eric,
The boundary between our dreams and our actualities is vague.
We do not yet actually have AI.
And when we get it, it will not longer be artificial.
AI = ~ AI.
The present LLM’s are nowhere near doing creative mathematics.
It is not enough to mimic rationality to do creative mathematics.
When the rules are all given and a search space is specified,
then computers can look for and find mathematical proofs that humans would not find without them.
This has been done and it will be done spectacularly in the future.
This will be exciting but we (the mathematicians) are designers of these games.
We will always be happy to see the machines go forward into more and more possibilities.
The key concepts here are comprescence and coalescence.
As we work with technologies we are no longer alongside them, we are coalesced with them.
I use my glasses by putting them on and becoming the world view that happens in SEEING THROUGH them.
And then “I” have lost “my” objectivity.
It was never mine.
Best,
Lou
P.S. Please note that I write in such a way that it is tempting to imagine arguing with my point of view.
But I do not have the point of view. You have the point of view. And when you argue with “me” you are arguing with yourself.
My intent is to write down points of view until they become absurd and turn into other points of view.
I trick you into participating, but you should know that I am doing this.
You trick me into responding.
Knowing will accelerate the process.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<i>
Dr. Eric Werner <br>
Oxford Advanced Research Foundation <br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://oarf.org__;!!D9dNQwwGXtA!RFyN7hk0AlV9HeO8eEdZLAxEABvEOkEAaKm_0gyN88qHOtckzvh_1mFRw2mOP7PhNet2zRuCwRHNtlMhAXtVRB0$">https://oarf.org</a> <br>
<br>
<br>
</i></div>
</body>
</html>