High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / preference

Published · transcript-backed

Chris Kempes: preference

25 Oct 2025 Machine Learning Street Talk The Universal Hierarchy of Life - Prof. Chris Kempes [SFI]

“1 of my favorite ways to test understanding is to predict the unseen or the unexpected, and I think that's, many theorists get very excited when they have a theory that predicts something that hasn't been seen yet, because it's sort of, I think what Rob Phillips once called it a dangerous prediction, right?”

— Chris Kempes

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Chris Kempes
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
preference
Recorded
25 Oct 2025
Publisher
Machine Learning Street Talk

Transcript context

…Chomsky said to us that deep learning is a bit like, I mean, used the term anything goes. And in his estimation, it didn't kind of, you know, as a theory, it didn't demarcate what something isn't versus what it is. I mean, in your estimation, what makes a good scientific theory? And what does it mean for us to actually understand something? I mean, for me, it's all about compactness and compression, right? So I think the amazing thing about equations is that we can transmit them to each other quickly, easily in small forms. Now there's a huge amount of knowledge that 1 requires to then decode those equations, right, so it's not so simple, like you and I might both have to spend 30 years learning all the mathematics it takes to transmit a certain sort of equation to each other. But once we've done that, once we have that training, this compact form is really an easy way to transmit understanding and knowledge. 1 of my favorite ways to test understanding is to predict the unseen or the unexpected, and I think that's, many theorists get very excited when they have a theory that predicts something that hasn't been seen yet, because it's sort of, I think what Rob Phillips once called it a dangerous prediction, right? There's no data for it yet, There's no way you could have tuned your theory to match some old data. You're making a prediction that will either be right or wrong about something that hasn't been seen yet. But that's a real notion of understanding I think, to say, you know, we've never looked for this, we've never seen this, but if X is true and Y is true, then certainly Z must be out there, let's go find it. And I think that's a real demonstration of understanding. I've just read your paper with David Krakauer, Multiple Paths to Life, and towards the end of the paper you said, we want to have a universal theory of life. Tell me about that.…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence