611–620 of 1001 posts
I like how everyone laughed when OpenAI said their models will have "PhD-Level Intelligence" and now the goalpost has been moved to if AI can create new math (i.e., not PhD-Level, but Leibniz/Euler/Galois level.)
What's laughable is an OpenAI employee invented the term "PHD level intelligence" and you think that " PHD Level intelligence" is a real term that describes a real thing and you are repeating it here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I just visited a McDonald's for the first time in a while. The self-order kiosk UI is quite bad. I think this is evidence in favor of the idea that an incompetent AI will soon be incompetently running a McDonald's.
Out of curiosity, what issue did you have with the McDonald’s self-order kiosk? I actually think McDonald’s has the best kiosk I’ve ever encountered. The little animation that plays when you add an item to your cart is a little annoying (but I think they’ve sped that up). But otherwise, it’s everything I’d want. It shows you all the items, tells you every ingredient, and lets you add or remove ingredients. I have a b…
It seems designed to maximize how many screens they show you to make an order. Each one with a slight delay and animation.
At a drive through I can say “gimme a number one, medium, with a Coke Zero” and they give me my total. That’s the convenience the kiosk is up against.
At the kiosk there’s:
- A welcome screen you have to tap
- A “carry out or dine in” screen
- Always one other screen with a dumb question about apps or whatever, tap through
- A top level menu with a bunch of categories, burgers, drinks, sides, desserts, etc… I guess I want burgers? But it’s a combo, hmm. I guess I’ll figure out how to make it a meal. Tap burgers.
- Then another screen with burgers, in a different order than the drive through numbering, tap Big Mac
- Then another dedicated screen to shows you a picture of a Big Mac, with a bunch of customization options, which you have to scroll past and verify that it matches the defaults you expect, and at the bottom you can tap add
- Then another screen asking you if you want to make it a meal
- Then another screen asking the size
- Then another screen asking what to drink
- Then another screen that shows you the drink
- Then another screen for what size
Etc etc etc. Each of these screens takes a few seconds to display too, just slow enough to be infuriating.
In my mind the ideal kiosk is something where you get “the menu” (like what you see on the billboard in the drive through) with the usual big squares with a number on them and a picture of the meal. Tapping one puts it in a “drawer” section with my order in it, and each item in the drawer can have simple in-line edit controls for “size” and “what to drink”, with them showing up empty in a way that makes it obvious I need to fill in those answers before I can check out.
I should be able to tap one button for the combo number I want, another for the size, another for the drink, then checkout, all on one screen without long delays. If I don’t want a combo but want individual items, I can just scroll down a bit to look at the full menu. The order drawer stays where it is.
Or hell, just let me say “number one with a Coke” and have a very simple ASR and NL parser figure it out and put it in my pending order to edit.
Customizations can be behind a simple “customize” button on each item in my pending order. If I don’t have customizations I can just ignore it. What you get with no customizations is what you’d get if you just order it verbally to a human without specifying anything. The concept of “here’s how we typically make it, if you want anything different let us know” is a very deeply ingrained and familiar concept to restaurant patrons, and being forced to answer every little question even if you don’t care, adds up to a lot of frustration.
Fast food places came up with the combo numbering system to make ordering faster, and it was super convenient and fast, because there’s a financial incentive to get you through the drive through because you’re blocking other customers. But since they have several kiosks available, they seem to not care at all about the efficiency of the user interface, because it’s not a problem for them. But it’s still a problem for me, because I still want to order quickly, despite it not blocking other customers. It’s a huge step down from just saying “number one with a Coke”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because for many people who pursue these fundamental truths, the reward is not necessarily personal fame, fortune, or even personal understanding. Advancing humanity's total knowledge (even if that knowledge is by proxy through AI) is reward enough.
I think when your work is no longer required, you will probably come to regret this sentiment, not that it matters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People who enjoy thinking. Ya know, the "intellectual" part.
This is the beginning of thinking, not the end...
It may be the beginning of thinking, but to many who view things on a longer timeline. It starts to look like it will breakdown the frameworks of which are required to get to that position. Otherwise, you just end up retreading explored ground. This removing the joy of discovery from any humans hand/mind.
To all AI skeptics: What is preventing AI from continuing to improve until it is absolutely better than humans at any mental task? If we compare AI now vs 2022 the difference is outstandingly stark. Do you believe this improvement will just stop before it eclipses all humans in everything we care about?
> What is preventing AI from continuing to improve until it is absolutely better than humans at any mental task? Well, there's the fact that it hasn't yet improved since what we had 3 years ago. That doesn't really bode well for the prospect of future improvement, though it's not technically impossible.
The proof brings unexpected, sophisticated ideas from algebraic number theory to bear on an elementary geometric question. The more I read about these achievements the more I get a feeling that a lot of the power of these models comes from having prior knowledge on every possible field and having zero problems transferring to new domains. To me the potential beauty of this is that these tools might help us break thro…
What you describe here has always been true in all sciences, but also in medicine. But both modern engineering and education runs completely counter to this. You are encouraged to stay in your niche and never look out. People with vast interested are filtered out by hiring managers. So the crossdomain pollination that used to exist in scientists is not only not encouraged. It's also actively punished by society.
As I have stated before, AI will win a fields medal before it can manage a McDonald's A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation. LLMs are just the beginning, we'll see more specialized math AI resembling StockFish soon.
> A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation. However, this was not verified in Lean. This was purely plain language in and out. I think, in many ways, this is a quite exciting demonstration of exactly the opposite of the point you're making. Verification comes in when you want to offload checking proofs to computers as well. As it s…
This is the caliber of thinking in unimpaired AI bullishness.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? It's clearly not yet a tool that can deliver new math at a scale. I say this because otherwise, the headline would be that they proved / disproved a hundred conjectures, not one. This is what happened with Mythos. You want to be the AI company that "solved" math, just like Anthropic got the headlines for "solving" (or breaking?) security. The fact they're announcing a single success story almost certainly means…
Or it means that this was a brand new model, they tried it and were instantly rewarded with a hit that was so interesting that several mathematicians pushed to publish the results.