Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 430 posts

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#371

Post by threethirtytwo »

square_usual wrote: post #64

It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs hav…

Yeah it's pervasive. It's also delusional.

Take a look at this entire thread. Everyone and I mean everyone is talking as if AI is some sort of fraud and everything is just hype. But then this thread is all against, AI, I mean all of it. If anything the Anti-hype around AI is what's flooding the world right now. If AI hype was through the roof we'd see the opposite effect on HN.

I think it's a strange contradiction in the human mind. At work outside of HN, what I see is roughly 50-60% of developers no longer code by hand. They all use AI. Then they come onto HN and they start Anti-hyping it. It's universal. They use it and they're against it at the same time.

The contradiction is strange, but it also makes sense because AI is a thing that is attacking what programmers take pride in. Most programmers are so proud of their abilities and intelligence as it relates to their jobs and livelihood. AI is on a trendline of replacing this piece by piece. It makes perfect sense for them to talk shit but at the same time they have to use it to keep up with the competition.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#372

Post by threethirtytwo »

D-Machine wrote: post #300
square_usual wrote: post #64

It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs hav…

"It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent. Like with the recent solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for Erdos problems, even though in almost all cases such solutions rely on poorly-known past publications, or significant expert user guidance and essential tools like…

>Only a fool would think we aren't potentially on the verge of something truly revolutionary here. But only a fool would also be certain that the revolution has already happened, or that e.g. AGI is necessarily imminent.

This sentence sounds contradictory. You're a fool to not think we're on the verge of something revolutionary and you are a fool if you think something revolutionary like AGI is on the verge of happening?

But to your point if "revolutionary" and "agi" are different things, I'm certain the "revolution" has already happened. ChatGPT was the step function change and everything else is just following the upwards trendline post release of chatGPT.

Anecdotally I would say 50% of developers never code things by hand anymore. That is revolutionary in itself and by the statement itself it has already literally happened.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#374

Post by threethirtytwo »

loire280 wrote: post #105
square_usual wrote: post #64

It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs hav…

It's easy to fall into a negative mindset when there are legions of pointy haired bosses and bandwagoning CEOs who (wrongly) point at breakthroughs like this as justification for AI mandates or layoffs.

I think it's more insidious then this.

It's easy to fall into a negative mindset because the justification is real and what we see is just the beginning.

Obviously we are not at a point where developers aren't needed. But One developer can do more. And that is a legitimate reason to higher less developers.

The impending reality of the upward moving trendline is that AI becomes so capable that it can replace the majority of developers. That future is so horrifying that people need to scaffold logic to unjustifiy it.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#375

Post by threethirtytwo »

lovecg wrote: post #98
square_usual wrote: post #64

It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs hav…

Let’s have some compassion, a lot of people are freaking out about their careers now and defense mechanisms are kicking in. It’s hard for a lot of people to say “actually yeah this thing can do most of my work now, and barrier of entry dropped to the ground”.

I'm all for this. But it's the delusion and denialism of people not wanting to face reality.

Like I have compassion, but I can't healthily respect people who try so hard to rewrite reality so that the future isn't so horrifying. I'm a SWE and I'm affected too, but it's not like I'm going to lie to myself about what's happening.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#376

Post by threethirtytwo »

Toutouxc wrote: post #217
lovecg wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let’s have some compassion, a lot of people are freaking out about their careers now and defense mechanisms are kicking in. It’s hard for a lot of people to say “actually yeah this thing can do most of my work now, and barrier of entry dropped to the ground”.

I am constantly seeing this thing do most of my work (which is good actually, I don't enjoy typing code), but requiring my constant supervision and frequent intervention and always trying to sneak in subtle bugs or weird architectural decisions that, I feel with every bone in my body, would bite me in the ass later. I see JS developers with little experience and zero CS or SWE education rave about how LLMs are so muc…

Have you ever thought about the fact that 2 years ago AI wasn't even good enough to write code. Now it's good enough.

Right now you state the current problem is: "requiring my constant supervision and frequent intervention and always trying to sneak in subtle bugs or weird architectural decisions"

But in 2 years that could be gone too, given the objective and literal trendline. So I actually don't see how you can hold this opinion: "I'm not even freaking about my career, I'm freaking about how much today's "almost good" LLMs can empower incompetence and how much damage that could cause to systems that I either use or work on." when all logic points away from it.

We need to be worried, LLMs are only getting better.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#377

Post by alainx277 »

kilroy123 wrote: post #232
Toutouxc wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am constantly seeing this thing do most of my work (which is good actually, I don't enjoy typing code), but requiring my constant supervision and frequent intervention and always trying to sneak in subtle bugs or weird architectural decisions that, I feel with every bone in my body, would bite me in the ass later. I see JS developers with little experience and zero CS or SWE education rave about how LLMs are so muc…

I agree with you on all of it. But _what if_ they work out all of that in the next 2 years and it stops needing constant supervision and intervention? Then what?

If you have an AI that's the equivalent of a senior software developer you essentially have AGI. In that case the entire world will fundamentally change. I don't understand why people keep bringing up software development specifically as something that will be automated, ignoring the implications for all white collar work (and the world in general).

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#378

Post by dotancohen »

DonaldFisk wrote: post #261
hn_acc1 wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying Newton was aware of quantum entanglement? Because that's what the "spooky action at a distance" quote refers to.

Newton wrote, "That one body may act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one another, is to me so great an absurdity that, I believe, no man who has in philosophic matters a competent faculty of thinking could ever fall into it." Source: https://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THE...

This quote itself must be taken in the context of Newton's own aspirations. Newton was specifically searching for force capable of moving distant objects when he realised the essence of gravity. No apple really fell on his head - that story was likely invented by those who could not stand Newton (he was famously brash) and meant simply that his personality was a result of getting hit on the head.

And Newton was famously interested in dark religous interference in worldly affairs - what today we would call The Occult. When he did finally succeed in finding his force for moving objects at a distance, without need for an intervening body, he gave credit to these supernatural entities - at least that is how this quote was taken in his day. This religious context is not well known today, nor is Newton's difficult character, so today it is easy to take the quote out of context. Newton was (likely) not disputing the validity of his discovery, rather, he was invoking one of his passions (The Occult) in the affairs of one of his successful passions (finding a force to move distant objects).

It should be noted that some of Newton's successful religious work is rarely attributed to him. For a prominent example, it was Newton that calculated Jesus's birth to be 4 BC, not 1 AD as was the intention of the new calendar.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#379

Post by gus_massa »

tsimionescu wrote: post #342
virgildotcodes wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> throw stuff at the wall, see what sticks, once something finally does report it as grandiose and claim to be "intelligent". What do we think humans are doing? I think it’s not unfair to say our minds are constantly trying to assemble the pieces available to them in various ways. Whether we’re actively thinking about a problem or in the background as we go about our day. Every once in a while the pieces fit together…

While I don't think anyone has a plausible theory that goes to this level of detail on how humans actually think, there's still a major difference. I think it's fair to say that if we are doing a brute force search, we are still astonishingly more energy efficient at it than these LLMs. The amount of energy that goes into running an LLM for 12h straight is vastly higher than what it takes for humans to think about si…

In the research group I am, we have usually try a few approach to each problem, let's say we get a:

Method A) 30% speed reduction and 80% precision decrease

Method B) 50% speed reduction and 5% precision increase

Method C) 740% speed reduction and 1% precision increase

and we only publish B. It's not brute force[1], but throw noodles at the wall, see what sticks, like the GP said. We don't throw spoons[1], but everything that looks like a noodle has a high chance of been thrown. It's a mix of experience[1] and not enough time to try everything.

[1] citation needed :)

Post reply on HN