Yeah, philosophy of science & analytic philosophy (especially with Quine) has been down this rabbit hole before.
Formalisms should be in service to higher-level intelligences, not the other way around. It's pretty clear that LLM's are intelligent inherently; the lean doesn't just "prove math itself". (Admittedly, I'm not full blown AGI pilled either - there are some structural constraints that do make me think there is room to be gained in intelligence. And formalism will play a part in that. But it's not the end-all be-all to it).
Comments
Is this the kind of thing that works when you have a tight domain-specific language, but devolves into natural language (English) eventually?
E.g. A -> B, B -> C so A -> C (works, great). A -> B when A is sort of red and blue, also A is intermittent (what to do now?)
Yeah, philosophy of science & analytic philosophy (especially with Quine) has been down this rabbit hole before.
Formalisms should be in service to higher-level intelligences, not the other way around. It's pretty clear that LLM's are intelligent inherently; the lean doesn't just "prove math itself". (Admittedly, I'm not full blown AGI pilled either - there are some structural constraints that do make me think there is room to be gained in intelligence. And formalism will play a part in that. But it's not the end-all be-all to it).