> this sort of understanding is a result of some manner of understanding the underlying mechanisms and not a result of just having a huge dictionary of synonyms.
He developed an understanding of the underlying mechanisms because he correlated concepts between algebraic and geometric domains, ie. multimodal training data. Multimodal models are already known to be meaningfully better than unimodal ones. We've barely scratched the surface of multimodal training.
First YouTube video that hit for "absolute value of complex" numbers says within 30 seconds that you have to take the 2 numbers, square them and add them and the result is square root of that. I doubt he had to come up with that on his own.
I imagine that was shown in the YouTube video visually? That it's a hypotenuse like he explained and this is how to calculate it. I'm just not seeing evidence that he came to the idea of it being like that on their own.
He basically reiterated the definition, and had to know the formula.
If the child would explain why should we even use or have complex numbers that would be impressive. As otherwise it just seems nothing more than hypotenuse calculation while using different, and "complex" or "impressive" sounding terms.
Why should you be interested in this in the first place?
He developed an understanding of the underlying mechanisms because he correlated concepts between algebraic and geometric domains, ie. multimodal training data. Multimodal models are already known to be meaningfully better than unimodal ones. We've barely scratched the surface of multimodal training.