Opinion: Data Mining and Formal Proofs Fundamentally Differ in 'Verification'
cjmaddison · x · 2026-08-03
The author pointed out a fundamental difference in the logical cognition between two types of 'verification'.
They illustrated this by noting that if a human 'validates' an insight by mining a database of biological data, it would not be considered an absolute biological fact. Conversely, if a human provides a Lean-checked mathematical proof, it is more or less considered a mathematical fact (modulo hacking any Lean bugs). This highlights the rigor of formal verification in establishing reliable knowledge.
Related event: Evaluating AI Verification: Data Mining vs Formal Proofs(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- Is superintelligence a bigger crypto threat than quantum? Experts split — examachine · 2026-10-16
- 'AI fakes intelligence the way a crane fakes strength' — pushback on the 'AI is a scam' take — LucaAmb · 2026-10-16
- MIT's Buehler: AI as 'a new language of science,' three years on — ProfBuehlerMIT · 2026-10-16
- Mere availability of AI advice collapses human "I don't know" from 43% to 3% — ValerioCapraro · 2026-10-16
- Uncensored AI Is About Sovereignty, Not Crime, Argues Open-Model Advocate — learnedall · 2026-10-16
- Sherry Turkle's 'Artificial Intimacy': AI is coming for our capacity for attachment — LuizaJarovsky · 2026-10-16