A learned idea is equivalent to a new idea. Both have been created and criticized in the mind.
But it’s not exactly the same. Because in certain proofs (e.g., zero-knowledge proofs) the verifier does not have to go though the prover’s thought processes.
Next:
Related:
- Verifying something means
- 2-1b2f ‘Equivalence’ - Reality doesn’t care genealogy. Solving problems is what matters. How it’s done matters less.
- 3-1c3b2 Reading the ‘original’ texts should not be the default to learn about philosophy (or anything for that matter)
- 4-1a4b3d The ‘ledger of record’ shifts the focus to adjacent layers
- 5-1b1a1 Improving on already existent technology by removing one of its restraints amounts to innovation
- 6-3b3b Not differentiating developers from users mean what attracts the former also attracts the latter, and vice versa
- If you use anything with the same understanding as the creator, it’s as though you created that product yourself!develop
- 8-1c2a What matters is the creativity per se, because non-creative parts will be made easier
- 10-2g5 Every invention is built up over time within culture
- 12-1a2a Crypto is network-ideological movement and doesn’t differentiate Chinese and Americans
- ”Interobjective”develop
- Implication for creative interpretation ‘創造的読者’develop
- An ability to recombine ideas itself is creativity, but we don’t know where it comes fromdevelop
- 3-1c2f In tech, most of the value is in the ordering, in the useful configuration of zeroes and ones, which users click to pay for it
- But in the sense of configuration of words
- Because of cultural differences, everyone can write something that resonates with someone else
- It’s probably impossible to write something that resonates with everyone (e.g., 10-2g1a Science emerged from culture)
- But remember: resonates doesn’t mean being read uniformly, because 9-1b1a It almost never happens that two minds hold precisely the same idea
- It’s probably impossible to write something that resonates with everyone (e.g., 10-2g1a Science emerged from culture)
- Because of cultural differences, everyone can write something that resonates with someone else
- But in the sense of configuration of words
The results from Anthropic study: participants in the AI group finished faster by about two minutes (not statistically significant), yet on average, the AI group also scored significantly worse on the quiz—17% lower, or roughly two letter grades. The high scorers (65%+) did something different: some generated code first, then asked follow-up questions to understand what they’d produced; others requested explanations alongside the code; the fastest group asked only conceptual questions, then coded independently while troubleshooting their own errors.
In short, you have to understand what’s been done.
Related:
Contradictory?
- Jack Clark on Gemini solving some Erdos problems (Google DeepMind et al) (20260210)
- AI massively speeds up generating candidate proofs, but the bottleneck becomes human experts who must evaluate correctness. “Large Language Models can easily generate candidate solutions, but the number of experts who can judge the correctness of a solution is relatively small, and even for experts, substantial time is required to carry out such evaluations”, the authors write.
- The verifier and the prover turned on its head <> verifier could be the bottleneck <> Scott Aaronson
- AI massively speeds up generating candidate proofs, but the bottleneck becomes human experts who must evaluate correctness. “Large Language Models can easily generate candidate solutions, but the number of experts who can judge the correctness of a solution is relatively small, and even for experts, substantial time is required to carry out such evaluations”, the authors write.