51–60 of 177 posts
What happens to science when the most talented kids won't be able to compete in ~2 years tops? Would our civilization reach plateau or start downward trajectory as there will be no incentive to torture oneself to become the best in the world? Will it all fade away like chess once computers started beating grandmasters?
I don't yet see a public copy of the training set / example training code, but still this is a good step towards providing something other researchers can build on -- which is after all the whole point of academic papers!
What happens to science when the most talented kids won't be able to compete in ~2 years tops? Would our civilization reach plateau or start downward trajectory as there will be no incentive to torture oneself to become the best in the world? Will it all fade away like chess once computers started beating grandmasters?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not tiny, this is a quite normal size outside the field of LLMs, e.g. normal-sized language models, or also translation models, or acoustic models. Some people even would call this large.
It's tiny by the standards of transformers, pretty sure most transformers trained (across all domains) are larger than this
“Our AI system” It’s our maths. No one else owns it? Funny game the AI field is playing now. One-upmanship seems to be the aim of the game.
“Our” doesn’t always imply ownership/title. I do not own my dad.
It looks like there's some interesting works to connect ML with symbolic reasoning (or searching). I'm closer to layman in this area but IIUC the latter is known to be rife with yet-to-be-understood heuristics to prune out the solution space and ML models are pretty good at this area. I'm not in a position to suggest what needs to happen to further push the boundary, but in my impression it looks like the current sig…
What happens to science when the most talented kids won't be able to compete in ~2 years tops? Would our civilization reach plateau or start downward trajectory as there will be no incentive to torture oneself to become the best in the world? Will it all fade away like chess once computers started beating grandmasters?
Chess is immensely more popular since Deep Blue beat Kasparov.
How will it work for math, where humans do useful work right now? I can not see battle math becoming a big thing, but maybe when some of the tedious stuff goes away math will be philosophy and poking the smarter system is where entertainment can be had?
As if they're stuck in a loop of "let's improve this a bit more until it is even better", while AGI is already a solved problem for them.
Or they're just an uncoordinated, chaotic bunch of AI teams without a leader who unifies them. With leader I don't mean Demis Hassabis, but rather someone like Sundar Pichai.
“What the I.M.O. is testing is very different from what creative mathematics looks like for the vast majority of mathematicians,” he said. --- Not to pick on this guy, but this is ridiculous goal post shifting. It's just astounding what people will hand-wave away as not requiring intelligence.
Also if you read about the structure of AlphaGeometry, I think it's very hard to maintain that it "requires intelligence." As AI stuff goes, it's pretty comprehensible and plain.
If I read their paper right, this is legit work (much more legit than DeepMind's AI math paper last month falsely advertised as solving an open math research problem) but it's still pretty striking how far away the structure of it is from the usual idea of automated reasoning/intelligence. A transformer is trained on millions of elementary geometry theorems and used as brute search for a proof, which because of the e…
I don't think this is quite right. The brute force search is performed by a symbolic solver, not the transformer. When it runs out of new deductions, the transformer is asked to suggest possible extra constructions (not randomly added).