[janalsncm]

> But matrix multiplication, to which our civilization is now devoting so many of its marginal resources, has all the elegance of a man hammering a nail into a board.

Elegance is a silly critique. Imagine instead we were spending trillions on floral bouquets, calligraphy, and porcelain tea sets. I would argue that would be a bad allocation of resources.

What matters to me is whether it solves the problems we have. Not how elegant we are in doing so. And to the extent AI fails to do that, I think those are valid critiques. Not how elegant it is.

[card_zero]

"Creeping elegance", I guess: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/creeping_elegance

But elegant can mean minimal, restrained, parsimonious, sparing. That's different from a bunch a paraphernalia and flowery nonsense.

[alganet]

You're right. It's all about solving problems.

Maybe we need a word that, when applied to mathematical concepts, describes how simple, easy to understand and generally useful a solution or idea is.

I wonder what that word could be.

[srean]

You mean tech-debt ridden spaghetti code that works now is as good as an elegant correct and an efficient code ?

[Joker_vD]

> Imagine instead we were spending trillions on floral bouquets, calligraphy, and porcelain tea sets. I would argue that would be a bad allocation of resources.

And I would argue it wouldn't. So? It's a value call.

> What matters to me is whether it solves the problems we have.

Again, what is and is not a problem is a value call. "Lacking tools to surveil and control the population" and "having population that demands its share of economic output" arguably are problems for someone which AI probably could solve. "The planet is literally on fire" is another problem (for, arguably, much bigger number of someones) and pouring terawatts of energy into chips that, coincidentally, do AI-related matrix multiplications, won't solve that problem.

[almostgotcaught]

the aesthetics of math and physics is by far the most boring discussion that can be had. i used to be utterly repulsed by such talk in undergrad - beauty this and that. it absolutely always felt affected and put on - as if you talk about it enough, you'll actually convince people outside of the major to give you the same plaudits as real artists.... yea right lol.

[chris_wot]

That’s the opinion of one person. There are many mathematicians who find beauty in the maths they are studying.

[srean]

I will emphasize your point more forcefully. All mathematicians I know work on what they work because of the beauty and aesthetics in their field.

Much like sex. Sex has reproductive utility but that's not why most people engage in it. Those who do are are missing much.

Notion of beauty for a mathematician is quite specialized. It's the difference between spaghetti code that works and an elegant and efficient code that is correct. They are easy to build upon efficiently.

[almostgotcaught]

> Much like sex.

My guy you know lots of people in here have read Feynman right? You should cite him instead of pretending you were clever enough to come up with the analogy yourself.

[srean]

Quite the contrary. I expect majority of HN readers to know the quote, base 0 if you will, and not harbor thoughts that by having read it they are a part of an exclusive club.

Channeling Good Will Hunting much huh? Most HN'ers would have watched that too.

[almostgotcaught]

I have no idea what you're trying to say - it is generally understood everywhere in the world (ie all forms of human culture) that it's pathetic to pass off someone else's insights as your own.

[almostgotcaught]

> There are many mathematicians who find beauty

Lol did you think this was clever? You just literally reiterated exactly what I said. See, if you had said "there are many pianists that find beauty in math" - you know like how many mathematicians find beauty in piano concertos - then you'd have me.

[inglor_cz]

Pianists don't find beauty in written maths, but mathematicians don't usually find beauty in sheet music either. It is the performance, accesible to our senses, that can convey beauty even to amateurs.

Accidentally - in the parts of maths where the concepts can be visualized, such as fractal theory, non-mathematicians seem to love what they see.

[almostgotcaught]

> written maths

Absolutely no one when they're navel gazing on this topic is discussing the aesthetics of notation.

> seem to love what they see.

Nor visualizations

[inglor_cz]

It was you who compared music to maths.

People in general perceive music as "what is being played" vs. mathematics "what is being written on a page". This is the common concept, but it is incomplete. Music has its boring parts (notation), so does maths, but the general public is prone to confuse maths as a whole with its "sheet music".

"when they're navel gazing"

Maybe they're just thinking?

[card_zero]

You're equivocating over the verdict, here. Are they right?