Evidence receipt / belief
Published · transcript-backedSpeaker unverified: belief
27 Sept 2025 Machine Learning Street Talk New top score on ARC-AGI-2-pub (29.4%) - Jeremy Berman
“I I'm for the record, I would define understanding as being able to I mean, I think understanding the spectrum, I think on 1 end, it's memorization, and then which is 0, understanding.”
— Speaker unverified
Source trail
Everything needed to verify it.
- Speaker
- Speaker unverified
- Attribution
- Not verified from this transcript
- Claim type
- belief
- Recorded
- 27 Sept 2025
- Publisher
- Machine Learning Street Talk
Transcript context
…It's it's so beautiful. We're writing an article about creativity at the moment. And I believe that in order to be creative, the the depth of understanding of the tree is very important. And, you know, just percholet, you know, intelligence is is the efficiency of how much of the history you can acquire. So like a university professor understands the tree very deeply. And that actually makes them unintelligible to a normal person. Like when Stephen Wolfram talks about the Rulliad all the time, people have got no idea what he's talking about. He's actually being very expressive. He's talking about things at a level of abstraction which, you know, can refer to anything, but it's beyond most people's cognitive horizon. But there is something to be said for that when when you can respect the history deep down into the epistemic tree, the creative stepping stones you take, because they respect the history, they actually have more evolvability. Right? Because you're you're you're you're still grounded to the real world. You're not becoming incoherent. So there's there's something there about really knowing things deeply that is important. Yes. Yes. I I'm for the record, I would define understanding as being able to I mean, I think understanding the spectrum, I think on 1 end, it's memorization, and then which is 0, understanding. And then on the other end, it's ability to deduce and, and also to deduce correctly. I agree with what you said. It's not enough to just, you know, have the right proof. It's you actually have to have, got you know, understood the tree. And that is like that this is understanding, and then intelligence is just how many things you understand. And so it's really just how how how wide and and high is your garden of trees. Yeah. We're we're pretty similar. I I would say intelligence is the efficiency that you can acquire the tree, and reasoning is building the tree. Discursive reasoning is executing the tree, and and and understanding is simply just possession of the tree.…
Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.