The blog post "The Cultural Divide Between Mathematics and AI" explores the differing approaches to knowledge and validation between mathematicians and AI researchers. Mathematicians prioritize rigorous proofs and deductive reasoning, building upon established theorems and valuing elegance and simplicity. AI, conversely, focuses on empirical results and inductive reasoning, driven by performance on benchmarks and real-world applications, often prioritizing scale and complexity over theoretical guarantees. This divergence manifests in communication styles, publication venues, and even the perceived importance of explainability, creating a cultural gap that hinders potential collaboration and mutual understanding. Bridging this divide requires recognizing the strengths of both approaches, fostering interdisciplinary communication, and developing shared goals.
Jürgen Schmidhuber's "Matters Computational" provides a comprehensive overview of computer science, spanning its theoretical foundations and practical applications. It delves into topics like algorithmic information theory, computability, complexity theory, and the history of computation, including discussions of Turing machines and the Church-Turing thesis. The book also explores the nature of intelligence and the possibilities of artificial intelligence, covering areas such as machine learning, neural networks, and evolutionary computation. It emphasizes the importance of self-referential systems and universal problem solvers, reflecting Schmidhuber's own research interests in artificial general intelligence. Ultimately, the book aims to provide a unifying perspective on computation, bridging the gap between theoretical computer science and the practical pursuit of artificial intelligence.
HN users discuss the density and breadth of "Matters Computational," praising its unique approach to connecting diverse computational topics. Several commenters highlight the book's treatment of randomness, floating-point arithmetic, and the FFT as particularly insightful. The author's background in physics is noted, contributing to the book's distinct perspective. Some find the book challenging, requiring multiple readings to fully grasp the concepts. The free availability of the PDF is appreciated, and its enduring relevance a decade after publication is also remarked upon. A few commenters express interest in a physical copy, while others suggest potential updates or expansions on certain topics.
The blog post explores the limitations of formal systems, particularly in discerning truth. It uses the analogy of two goblins, one always truthful and one always lying, to demonstrate how relying solely on a system's rules, without external context or verification, can lead to accepting falsehoods as truths. Even with additional rules added to account for the goblins' lying, clever manipulation can still exploit the system. The post concludes that formal systems, while valuable for structuring thought, are ultimately insufficient for determining truth without external validation or a connection to reality. This highlights the need for critical thinking and skepticism even when dealing with seemingly rigorous systems.
The Hacker News comments generally praise the clarity and engaging presentation of the article's topic (formal systems and the halting problem, illustrated by a lying goblin puzzle). Several commenters discuss the philosophical implications of the piece, particularly regarding the nature of truth and provability within defined systems. Some draw parallels to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, while others offer alternate goblin scenarios or slight modifications to the puzzle's rules. A few commenters suggest related resources, such as Raymond Smullyan's work, which explores similar logical puzzles. There's also a short thread discussing the potential applicability of these concepts to legal systems and contract interpretation.
Mathematicians are exploring the boundaries of provability using large language models (LLMs) and other automated theorem provers. While these tools can generate novel and valid proofs, they often rely on techniques too complex for human comprehension. This raises questions about the nature of mathematical truth and understanding. If a proof is too long or intricate for any human to verify, does it truly constitute "knowledge"? Researchers are investigating ways to make these computer-generated proofs more accessible and understandable, potentially revealing new insights into mathematical structures along the way. The ultimate goal is to find a balance between the power of automated proving and the human need for comprehensible explanations.
HN commenters discuss the implications of Gödel's incompleteness theorems and the article's exploration of concrete examples in Ramsey theory and Diophantine equations. Some debate the philosophical significance of undecidable statements, questioning whether they represent "true" mathematical facts or merely artifacts of formal systems. Others highlight the practical limitations of proof assistants and the ongoing search for more powerful automated theorem provers. The connection between computability and the physical universe is also raised, with some suggesting that undecidable statements could have physical implications, while others argue for a separation between abstract mathematics and the concrete world. Several commenters express appreciation for the article's clarity in explaining complex mathematical concepts to a lay audience.
This article dissects the structure of a formal mathematical proof, illustrating it with a simple example about even and odd numbers. It emphasizes the distinction between informal proofs aimed at human understanding and formal proofs designed for automated verification. Formal proofs meticulously lay out every logical step, referencing specific axioms and inference rules within a chosen formal system. This detailed approach, while tedious for humans, enables computer-assisted verification and eliminates ambiguity, ensuring absolute rigor. The article highlights the importance of choosing appropriate axioms and the role of proof assistants in constructing and checking these complex formal structures, ultimately increasing confidence in mathematical results.
HN commenters discuss the accessibility of formal proof systems, particularly referencing Lean. Some express excitement about the potential of formal proofs to revolutionize mathematics, while others are more skeptical, citing the steep learning curve and questioning the practical benefits for most mathematicians. Several commenters debate the role of intuition versus rigor in mathematical practice, with some arguing that formalization can enhance understanding and others suggesting it might stifle creativity. The feasibility of formalizing existing mathematical knowledge is also discussed, with varying opinions on the timescale and resources required for such a project. Some users highlight the potential of AI in assisting with formalization efforts, while others remain cautious about its current capabilities. The overall tone is one of cautious optimism, acknowledging the challenges but also recognizing the potential transformative power of formal proof systems.
Summary of Comments ( 49 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43344703
HN commenters largely agree with the author's premise of a cultural divide between mathematics and AI. Several highlighted the differing goals, with mathematics prioritizing provable theorems and elegant abstractions, while AI focuses on empirical performance and practical applications. Some pointed out that AI often uses mathematical tools without necessarily needing a deep theoretical understanding, leading to a "cargo cult" analogy. Others discussed the differing incentive structures, with academia rewarding theoretical contributions and industry favoring impactful results. A few comments pushed back, arguing that theoretical advancements in areas like optimization and statistics are driven by AI research. The lack of formal proofs in AI was a recurring theme, with some suggesting that this limits the field's long-term potential. Finally, the role of hype and marketing in AI, contrasting with the relative obscurity of pure mathematics, was also noted.
The Hacker News post titled "The Cultural Divide Between Mathematics and AI" (linking to an article on sugaku.net) has generated a moderate number of comments, exploring various facets of the perceived cultural differences between the two fields.
Several commenters discuss the contrasting emphases on proof versus empirical results. One commenter highlights that mathematics prioritizes rigorous proof and deductive reasoning, while AI often focuses on empirical validation and inductive reasoning based on experimental outcomes. This difference in approach is further elaborated upon by another commenter who suggests that mathematicians are primarily concerned with establishing absolute truths, whereas AI practitioners are more interested in building systems that perform effectively, even if their inner workings aren't fully understood. The idea that AI is more results-oriented is echoed in another comment mentioning the importance of benchmarks and practical applications in the field.
Another line of discussion revolves around the different communities and their values. One commenter observes that the mathematical community values elegance and conciseness in their proofs and solutions, whereas the AI community, influenced by engineering principles, often prioritizes performance and scalability. This difference in values is attributed to the distinct goals of each field – uncovering fundamental truths versus building practical applications.
The role of theory is also debated. One commenter argues that despite the empirical focus, theoretical underpinnings are becoming increasingly important in AI as the field matures, exemplified by the growing interest in explainable AI (XAI). Another comment suggests that AI, being a relatively young field, still lacks the deep theoretical foundation that mathematics possesses. This difference in theoretical maturity is linked to the historical development of the fields, with mathematics having centuries of established theory compared to the nascent stages of AI.
The discussion also touches upon the different tools and techniques used in each field. One commenter mentions the prevalence of probabilistic methods and statistical analysis in AI, contrasting it with the deterministic and logical approaches favored in mathematics. This distinction is highlighted by another comment pointing out the reliance on large datasets and computational power in AI, which is less common in traditional mathematical research.
Finally, some commenters express skepticism about the framing of a "cultural divide." One commenter argues that the two fields are complementary, with mathematical insights informing AI advancements and AI challenges prompting new mathematical research. Another comment suggests that the perceived divide is more of a difference in emphasis and methodology rather than a fundamental clash of cultures.