Wake me up when it creates cancer cure or fusion reactor.
So you can move the goal post again?
Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
251–260 of 607 posts
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#252Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see it as a gotcha. Just an (evergreen, it seems) observation that people will absolutely move the goalposts every time there's something new. And people can be ignorant outsiders or experts in that field as well. For example, ~2 years ago, an expert in ML publicly made this remark on stage: LLMs can't do math. Today they absolutely and obviously, can. Yet somehow it's not impressive anymore. Or, and this is…
> For example, ~2 years ago, an expert in ML See, that’s a poor argument already. Anyone could counter that with other experts in ML publicly making remarks that AI would have replaced 80% of the work force or cured multiple diseases by now, which obviously hasn’t happened. That’s about as good an argument as when people countered NFT critics by citing how Clifford Stoll said the internet was a fad. > made this remar…
The definition of "can/cannot do math" didn't change. That's not up for debate. 2 years ago they couldn't solve an erdos problem (people have tried, Tao has tried ~1 year ago). Today they can.
Definitions don't change. The idea that now that they can it's no longer intelligence is changing. And that's literally moving the goalposts. Read the thread here, go to the bottom part. There are zillions of comments saying this.
You are keen to not trying to understand what the quote is saying. This is not good faith discussion, and it's not going anywhere. We're already miles from where we started. The quote is an observation (and an old one at that) about goalposts moving. If you can't or won't see that, there's no reason to continue this thread.
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#253Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it could be a massive waste of time and money.
Capitalism already is a poor allocator of human effort, resources, and energy, why lock in on this specifically? There's entire professions that are essentially worthless to society that exist only to perpetuate the inherent contradictions of this system, why not focus more on all that wasted human effort? Or the fact that everyone has to do some arbitrary sellable labor in order to justify their existence, rather th…
> Capitalism already is a poor allocator of human effort, resources, and energy, why lock in on this specifically?
It's absolutely best allocator of human effort there is. It has some problems but compared to alternatives it's almost perfect.
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#254Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#255It seems like alot of scientific advancements occurred by someone applying technique X from one field to problem Y in another. I feel like LLMs are much better at making these types of connections than humans because they 1) know about many more theories/approaches than a single human can 2) don't need to worry about looking silly in front of their peers.
accuracy and creativity are often quite difficult to achieve at the same time. Looks like LLM can do it, even though one can question how creative it really is...
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#256Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ChatGPT equalizes intelligence Yes, I love living in communism too. Imagine if you had to pay money for it or something. The wealthiest people would get unrestricted access to intelligence while the poor none. And the people in the middle would eventually find themselves unable to function without a product they can no longer afford. Chilling, huh? Good thing humans are known for sharing in the benefits of technolo…
what? the post is literally titled "Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem". stop spreading FUD about unaffordability
They used ChatGPT Pro to solve it. Over 50% of people in the world couldn't afford ChatGPT Pro ($200/mo) even if they spent more than half of their income on it. [1]
What was that about "spreading FUD about unaffordability"?
[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-th...
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#257Now do P vs NP. If/when these things solve our hardest problems, that's going to lead to some very uncomfortable conversations and realizations.
Nah, people are going to say: It just used these 500 weird tricks from all kinds of different areas. A human could totally have done it. Nobody looked. I guess P/NP wasn't that hard after all.
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#258[dead]
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#259Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember when people thought solving Erdos problems required intelligence? Is there anything an LLM could ever do that would cound as intelligence? Surely the trend has to break at some point, if so what would be the thing that crosses the line to into real intelligence?
When will LLM folks realize that automated theorem provers have existed for decades and non-ML theorem provers have solved non-trivial Math problems tougher than this Erdos problem. Proposing and proving something like Gödel's theorem's definitely requires intelligence. Solving an already proposed problem is just crunching through a large search space.
So the only intelligent people in history are those who invent new fields of mathematics, got it.
You can just about make out those goalposts on the surface of the moon with a good telescope at this point.
Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem
#260Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither does the Collatz conjecture, Fermat's last theorem, .... (Of course, those problems are on another plane than this one.)
But that’s exactly my point. These are absolutely worth studying, but being what they are, nobody should be dumping massive amounts of money on them. I would not find it persuasive if researchers used LLMs to solve the Collatz conjecture or finally decode Etruscan. These are extremely valuable, but it is unlikely to be worth it for an LLM just grinding tokens like crazy to do it.
If solving even the biggest problems in pure maths is not worth it for you, then I guess we should stop all the pure maths research - researchers are getting paid much more than potential token spend, frequently for decades and they frequently work on much less important and easier problems.