5 ms·

Uh, he did. Marcel Grossmann. “It was Grossmann who emphasized the importance of a non-Euclidean geometry called Riemannian geometry (also elliptic geometry) t

Uh, he did. Marcel Grossmann. “It was Grossmann who emphasized the importance of a non-Euclidean geometry called Riemannian geometry (also elliptic geometry) to Einstein, which was a necessary step in the development of Einstein's general theory of relativity. Abraham Pais's book on Einstein suggests that Grossmann mentored Einstein in tensor theory as well. Grossmann introduced Einstein to the absolute differential calculus, started by Elwin Bruno Christoffel and fully developed by Gregorio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio Levi-Civita. Grossmann facilitated Einstein's unique synthesis of mathematical and theoretical physics in what is still today considered the most elegant and powerful theory of gravity: the general theory of relativity.”

defmacr0 6d ago
Yeah and we get a nice list of attributions for who developed which idea, while OpenAI just takes credit for everything its model spits out.
- znnajdla 6d ago
  Correction: OpenAI takes credit for what it's model spits out in response to other people's prompts. That's even worse.
znnajdla 6d ago
Sounds like you just copy-pasted from AI without even understanding what you're talking about. Based on what you're saying, you're claiming this is Grossman's work, not Einstein's. Why don't we rewrite scientific history too based on your copy-pasted AI slop? It's so pointless talking to idiots who don't what they're talking about when they use AI, just because they think AI does everything, that reflects their own experience, not the experience of people who actually do real work. Some people are driven by AI, others drive it. As for those who are driven by it, they don't have sufficient imagination to think otherwise.
- madaxe_again 6d ago
  That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you. And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance. And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You?
  - calf 6d ago
    So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy. To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well.
    - madaxe_again 6d ago
      Actually, my undergraduate degree was physics and philosophy. And yes, synthesis is synthesis whether a human, a machine, or a duck does it, and people prompt one another all the time - “have you thought about trying X?” Or “I need the TPS report by EOB”. I suppose my underlying point is that human cognition is not the unique and beautiful thing that we anthropocentrically suppose it to be - it is a physical process, with stochastic outcomes. Much like transformers. Me, I’m just a machine made of meat. You can suppose yourself to be God’s perfect creation, and that’s your right, but I disagree.
      - calf 6d ago
        Clearly your degrees did not make you immune from fallacies and simplistic reductions. "Synthesis" is obviously of different kinds. A duck has a different level of intelligence than a human. We do not say both are "just doing synthesis". So the question is how can you be so disingenuous about such terminology? Answer, you are relying on a classic form of scientistic reductivism. The fact that intelligence is physical, emerges from chemistry, etc,. has nothing to do with there being also objectively different levels of computational sophistication. If you want to be scientific about that you could look at neuropsychology on one hand and computability/complexity on the other. There are levels and so equivocation of "mentorship" as "prompting" and fallacious variants thereof is a) frankly intellectually obtuse, b) par for the course for SV-levels of philosophizing, c) and a disservice to philosophy, physics, and Einstein's own philosophical outlooks himself. I am well aware of the Hinton-style physics argument about human cognition, and unlike others I am partial to it. That "there is no special magic." But it is wrong to go about misunderstanding and/or conveying this physicalism/computationalim so grossly. I also don't have to start replies thumping my chest about my credentials, also another kind of intellectual boorishness that works to cloud understanding and serious discussion. I'm not sure which move is worse or more telling, those above or the one backhandedly accusing someone who disagrees with you of religious thinking. It is bad faith and undisciplined behavior. Having privileged and advanced degrees is clearly no antidote, as Asimov famously wrote.
gnfargbl 6d ago
Grossmann collaborated with Einstein on GR, supplying quite a bit of the mathematical capacity required (which initially didn't come easily to Einstein). They published jointly, until Einstein was competent enough to work independently [1]. That's not equivalent to the situation being claimed here. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4068 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4068

defmacr0 6d ago

Yeah and we get a nice list of attributions for who developed which idea, while OpenAI just takes credit for everything its model spits out.

znnajdla 6d ago
Correction: OpenAI takes credit for what it's model spits out in response to other people's prompts. That's even worse.

znnajdla 6d ago

Sounds like you just copy-pasted from AI without even understanding what you're talking about. Based on what you're saying, you're claiming this is Grossman's work, not Einstein's. Why don't we rewrite scientific history too based on your copy-pasted AI slop? It's so pointless talking to idiots who don't what they're talking about when they use AI, just because they think AI does everything, that reflects their own experience, not the experience of people who actually do real work. Some people are driven by AI, others drive it. As for those who are driven by it, they don't have sufficient imagination to think otherwise.

madaxe_again 6d ago
That’s Wikipedia I copy pasted but sure, you do you. And yes - without Grossmann, Einstein likely would never have posited relativity. Grossmann literally prompted him, saying “look at this, read that, learn this, then try this approach”. Without riemann’s metric tensor, not a fucking chance. And for what it’s worth my PhD is in physics. You?
- calf 6d ago
  So you're just equivocating on terms like "prompt", "synthesis" and the like. Clearly a PhD in physics does not free people from scientistic modes of thinking and poor philosophy. To think this discussion is about Einstein who had a much better mind on these things as well.
  - madaxe_again 6d ago
    Actually, my undergraduate degree was physics and philosophy. And yes, synthesis is synthesis whether a human, a machine, or a duck does it, and people prompt one another all the time - “have you thought about trying X?” Or “I need the TPS report by EOB”. I suppose my underlying point is that human cognition is not the unique and beautiful thing that we anthropocentrically suppose it to be - it is a physical process, with stochastic outcomes. Much like transformers. Me, I’m just a machine made of meat. You can suppose yourself to be God’s perfect creation, and that’s your right, but I disagree.
    - calf 6d ago
      Clearly your degrees did not make you immune from fallacies and simplistic reductions. "Synthesis" is obviously of different kinds. A duck has a different level of intelligence than a human. We do not say both are "just doing synthesis". So the question is how can you be so disingenuous about such terminology? Answer, you are relying on a classic form of scientistic reductivism. The fact that intelligence is physical, emerges from chemistry, etc,. has nothing to do with there being also objectively different levels of computational sophistication. If you want to be scientific about that you could look at neuropsychology on one hand and computability/complexity on the other. There are levels and so equivocation of "mentorship" as "prompting" and fallacious variants thereof is a) frankly intellectually obtuse, b) par for the course for SV-levels of philosophizing, c) and a disservice to philosophy, physics, and Einstein's own philosophical outlooks himself. I am well aware of the Hinton-style physics argument about human cognition, and unlike others I am partial to it. That "there is no special magic." But it is wrong to go about misunderstanding and/or conveying this physicalism/computationalim so grossly. I also don't have to start replies thumping my chest about my credentials, also another kind of intellectual boorishness that works to cloud understanding and serious discussion. I'm not sure which move is worse or more telling, those above or the one backhandedly accusing someone who disagrees with you of religious thinking. It is bad faith and undisciplined behavior. Having privileged and advanced degrees is clearly no antidote, as Asimov famously wrote.

gnfargbl 6d ago

Grossmann collaborated with Einstein on GR, supplying quite a bit of the mathematical capacity required (which initially didn't come easily to Einstein). They published jointly, until Einstein was competent enough to work independently [1]. That's not equivalent to the situation being claimed here. [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4068 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1312.4068