Live data from Hacker News

Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

scientificamerican.com

561–570 of 607 posts

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#561
post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Similarly, none of our comments actually exist as language on Hacker News—just numerical values from the ASCII table. We're deluding each other into thinking we're using language.

I believe it's reasonably clear that our thought processes generally occur outside of language. We do use language during explicit reasoning, but most thinking occurs heuristically. It's on par with the thinking of animals that don't use language but do complex behavior. It not clear to me how well that maps onto LLMs. Our wetware predates language, and isn't derived from it. Language is built on top. LLMs are derive…

There’s an interesting thing there that I believe varies person to person. My understanding is that some people do think in a more symbolic/heuristic way, some rely very heavily on their inner monologue to make sense of things (I am in the latter camp, and only have a single core language processor so pretty much cannot come up with coherent thoughts if I’m concentrating on what someone else is saying)

Even more interesting, and getting off on a bit of a tangent, there is also a mode that I use for revealing emotions that I don’t have words for (alexythmia): I open up a text editor, stare off into space, and let my fingers type without “observing” the stream of words coming out. I then go back and read what I “wrote” and often end up understanding how I’m feeling much better than I did. It’s weird.

Edit: also, playing with local models through e.g. llama-cpp in “thinking mode” is super fascinating for me. The “thought process” that comes out before the real answer often feels pretty familiar when I reflect on my own inner monologue, although sometimes it’s frustrating for me because I see where their “thinking” went off the rails and want to correct it.

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A concise problem that requires actual logic will naturally seem a bit convoluted, but an intelligent being can sit down and work it out logically. Anyway, it's not an argument. It's empirical evidence that supports my argument. You have chosen to ignore it or otherwise rationalize it away. Nothing I can do about that.

I'm comfortable with what the thread says about our respective arguments at this point. Thanks!

[dead]

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#563
post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not “absurdist” to call out a baseless claim that doesn’t take into account over half of humanity, a percentage that will grow even further once investor money inevitably runs out. If your response to that is to wave away more than 4 billion people, then you’re not even trying to look like you care about reality, you’re just trying to make yourself feel better with some made-up nonsense. You seem to be under th…

It is fucking absurdist and pedantic when I hear this drivel coming out of the mouth of a hypocrite. You’re already part of the privileged few. Every single thing that you do from drinking clean water to writing your bullshit on the Internet is the result of your own arguments of distributing technology among the top percentage. And as a recipient of such benefits you should have the intelligence to see that even tha…

You open with an insult directed at the HN community. Then you call me names. Then you lecture me about HN guidelines. Then you post this.

Flagging because this kind of language has no place on HN.

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#564
post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is fucking absurdist and pedantic when I hear this drivel coming out of the mouth of a hypocrite. You’re already part of the privileged few. Every single thing that you do from drinking clean water to writing your bullshit on the Internet is the result of your own arguments of distributing technology among the top percentage. And as a recipient of such benefits you should have the intelligence to see that even tha…

You open with an insult directed at the HN community. Then you call me names. Then you lecture me about HN guidelines. Then you post this. Flagging because this kind of language has no place on HN.

Oh if your so but hurt by this go ahead and call me names if you want. Hypocrite is not really that much of an insult and it's true. You called someone absurd as well.

> Then you lecture me about HN guidelines.

Not a lecture. An example of how it's a well known issue. I'm obviously not a rule follower myself; and your content is not really fit for HN either. Once you flag the entire conversation is over. I don't really care, but if I were you I'd rather end the argument by being right instead of running away and tattle tailing to the authorities. Up to you.

maybe the admins come in and block the convo, delete it, and/or ban me. Who knows. I don't care. The fact of the matter is... I'm right, and you know it. Everything I said here is true, and you're turning to this way to end it because you can't face it.

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#565
post #505
post #457

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what is surprise really? Something not following expectation. The distribution may statistically leverage surprise as a concept via how it has seen surprise as a concept e.g. "interesting!" So it can be both true that it has nothing to do with the emotion of surprise, but appear as the emulation of that emotion since the training data matches the concept of surprise (mismatch between expectation and event).

It’s the emotional and physiological response to a prediction being wrong. At its most primal, it’s the fear and surge of adrenaline when a predator or threat steps out from where you thought there was no threat. That’s not something most people will literally experience these days but even comedic surprise stems from that shock of subversion of expectation. LLMs do not feel. They can express feeling, just as you can…

Yes, I agree entirely. It has nothing to do with the emotion of surprise.

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#566

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't ask an LLM to output this directly. For an ellipse ascii I would guess that having it write a python program to generate it and then run it would work much better. Using claude sonnet 4.6 on a free account it seemed to work (sorry in advance if the hacker news formatting is horrendous) ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠤⠔⠒⠒⠋⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠙⠒⠒⠢⠤⣄⣀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ ⠀⢀⡠⠖⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠲⢄⡀⠀ ⣰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣆ ⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀…

You can use two spaces at the beginning of each line to trigger the "code" mode. I tried to reconstruct your drawing, but perhaps I didn't guess correctly: ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣀⣠⠤⠔⠒⠒⠋⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠉⠙⠒⠒⠢⠤⣄⣀ ⠀⢀⡠⠖⠋⠁⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠈⠙⠲⢄⡀ ⣰⠋⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠙⣆ ⡇⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢸ ⠹⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⣠⠏ ⠀⠈⠑⠦⣄⡀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⢀⣠⠴⠊⠁ ⠀⠀ ⠀⠀⠉⠙⠒⠢⠤⠤⣄⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣀⣠⠤⠤⠔⠒⠋⠉⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Edit: I had to delete the two first spaces or e…

All the whitespace appears to be a blank braille character, so it still displays correctly even without the indentation formatting: https://www.compart.com/en/unicode/U+2800

(Passed it through xxd to get the utf8 hex values)

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#567
post #468

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are less people starving now than ever now I see no reason to attribute that to capitalism. Capitalist and non capitalist societies had famines, and capitalist and non capitalist societies industrialized and improved people's material conditions - by raw number of people, non capitalist societies did this for more people. The PRC indeed has opened their markets, and now has capital allocation issues - their i…

> by raw number of people, non capitalist societies did this for more people. That's completely false. Please take your time to verify it, I hope that getting your facts straight will make you reconsider your position (and not get mad at facts). > The PRC indeed has opened their markets, and now has capital allocation issues - their initial chip development programs failed because of market viability issues, and for…

There's not much point in us each accusing the other of misrepresenting facts, as I'm about to do you.

So instead, how about trying to answer the question that capitalism can't, within the confines of capitalist incentives - what do you do with people when your unemployment hits 26%? 50%?

Dogmatism towards the current system blinds perspective. One could easily grant that capitalism was the best industrializing mechanism, it still wouldn't presuppose it as the most humane framework for an industrialized world.

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Thought for 80m 17s" Is there any good rule of thumb for how many kWh of electricity this is?

Many orders of magnitude less than the energy needed to sustain a human while they work through the problem.

Babies are not conditionally created to solve a problem.

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An idle GPU consumes almost nothing, a loaded (server-class) GPU can consume over 2kW. Admittedly a single request isn't a full load, but claiming that a request makes no difference vs idle is misguided, in my opinion.

OpenAI GPU wont be idle for long because they have all other requests to serve. Over time there will be a certain % of idle GPUs, amortized across all hundreds of millions of requests they receive.

And idle% is causally connected to whether you make a request or not, surely? I don't understand how your mental model works.

Re: Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem

#570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and the child comment’s point is that formalizing the problem is likely easier than having the LLM verify that each step of a long deduction is correct, which is why Lean might be helpful.

But both of you are ignoring the parent comment! Actually you're ignoring the context of the thread. Originally someone said "I wish I was math smart to know if [this vibe-mathematics proof] worked or not." They did NOT say "I'd like to check but I am too lazy." Suggesting "ask it to formalize it in Lean" is useless if you're not mathematically mature enough to understand the proof, since that means you're not mathem…

It’s not useless, because you can, for example, ask multiple frontier models to do the formalization and see if they agree. And if they have surface-level differences in formalization, you can also ask them whether apparently-different definitions are equivalent.

This isn’t perfect of course - perhaps every single model is wrong. But you are too quick to declare that something isn’t useful for arriving at an answer. Reducing the surface area of what needs to be checked is good regardless.

Post reply on HN