[spockz]

How much does this align with how we learn math? We kind of instinctively learn the answers to simple math questions. We can even at some point develop an intuition for things like integrating and differentials. But the moment we are asked to explain why, or worse provide a proof, things become a lot harder. Even though the initial answer may be correct.

[larodi]

I definitely don’t learn math by means of gradient descents.

We can possibly say math is not learned, but a mental models of abstractions are developed. How? We dunno, but what we do know is we don’t learn by figuring the common features between all previously seen equations only to guess them later…

Mind operates on higher and higher levels of abstractions building on each other in a much fascinating way, very often not with words, but with structure and images.

Of course there are people with aphantasia, but i really fail to see how any reasoning happens in purely language level. Someone on this forum also noted - in order to reason one needs an ontology to facilitate the reasoning process. LLMs don’t do ontologies…

And finally, not least though, LLM and ML people in general seem to equate intuition to some sort biased.random(). Well intuition is not random, and is hard to describe in words. So are awe and inspiration. And these ARE part of (precondition to, fuel for) humanity’s thought process more that we like to admit.

[shotnothing]

> I definitely don’t learn math by means of gradient descents.

https://physoc.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/JP282747

[larodi]

The fact it (is suggested / we are led to believe / was recently imlied ) the neurons can be explained to be doing something like it on the underlying layer still says little about the process of forming ontological context needed for any kind of syllogism.

[mplewis]

Humans learn skills like basic mathematics by reasoning about their environment and building internal models of problems they’re trying to solve. LLMs do not reason and they cannot model their environment.