you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 73 points 7 months ago (15 children)

I think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics.

If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics.

Both quotes attributed to Richard Feynman.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago (10 children)

    I can do (some of) the maths, but I definitely can't explain why any of it is like that, or how it works.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • You know what, i keep thinking that maybe, our universe is the only universe that actually functions. Like, if the universe was in some different way, it either wouldn't work and we would therefore not exist to observe it, or it would be equivalent to this universe, i.e. maybe not exactly equal, but similar in some way, sothat we could form abstractions and arrive at the same universal laws that we have today. Including quantum mechanics.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago

    I like watching it in action. I don't know what the hell is going on, but it gives me a strange kind of peace, and if you stare at it long enough, you trick yourself into thinking that it makes some kind of sense.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -4 points 7 months ago (6 children)

    I can tell a piece of software to do the maths for ms. Sometimes the results appear to work with reality.

    People complain about LLMs hallucinating, but they have no idea of how many assumptions and just plain "everybody does it this way, I guess it works" are there in scientific research.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    It’s called the heuristic method and those doing it know the limitations. Whereas LLMs will just confidently put out garbage claiming it true.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Scientific calculations - and other approaches as well - put out garbage all the time, that is the main point of what I said above.

    Some limitations are known, just like it is known that LLMs have the limitation of hallucinating.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 7 months ago

    I didn’t notice your critique on the outcome of results, but how they were achieved. LLM’s hallucinating are making computers make ”human errors”, which makes them less deterministic, the key reason I prefer doing some things on a computer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    The different domain though. LLM hallucinations may lead to catastrophe, while assuming infinite mass of an electron in absence of electromagnetic field is neat

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago

    Calculations will happily tell you that an acutely toxic drug is the best way to cure cancer.

    The reason why that does not lead to catastrophe is that there are many checks and safety nets in place in order not to blindly trust any result.

    The exact same approach can be applied to an LLM.

  • source
  • parent
  • What does "understanding" mean in this context?

    I can perfectly fine do the calculations; That's what "understanding" is, in my opinion. Feynman might be hitting on some metaphysical concept, but then again, what is that metaphysical concept, is it any different from pseudoscience, and do we really need it?

  • source
  • parent