691–700 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.)
PhDs used to mean publishing a novel mathematical result: when has that changed?
Speaking as a postdoc in math, I must say that this is rather exciting. This is outside of my field, but the companion remarks document is quite digestible. It appears as though the proof here fairly inspired by results in literature, but the tweaks are non-trivial. Or, at least to me, they appear to be substantial to where I would consider the entire publication novel and exciting. Many of my colleagues and I have b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you interpret “interpolate” in the literal sense, and apply it to the mechanisms behind LLMs, then the claim that they only interpolate, is straightforwardly false. Taking it instead as a metaphorical claim may be more valid, but in that case it doesn’t depend on our understanding of how LLMs work.
LLMs are statistical models by construction, so depending on how liberal you want to be with terminology, "interpolate" is not so bad. Might make a statistician upset.
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.)
PhDs used to mean publishing a novel mathematical result: when has that changed?
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.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But, for scientists, I find that these tools address the problem of the exploding complexity barrier in the frontier. Every day, it grows harder and harder to contain a mental map of recent relevant progress by simple virtue of the amount being produced. AI is going to both help and hinder this process though. At the end of the day, mathematics is mostly a social process at this point. The goal is not raw number of…
> Only a rare few new theorems in mathematics nowadays have direct real world applicability. I am no mathematician and very naïve about this, but in a world that is rapidly becoming extremely calculation and network dependent that sounds hard to believe. > If AI produced legitimate theoretical breakthroughs at a pace mathematicians are unable to absorb, then the impact will be neutral to negative. I think the idea he…
> I am no mathematician and very naïve about this, but in a world that is rapidly becoming extremely calculation and network dependent that sounds hard to believe.
I am a mathematician. It is true. The key is we're talking about new theorems, and direct, current real world applicability. Some theorems that have no applicability now may in the future, as theory often precedes applications by a long way and the usefulness is likely to come from other things built on top of the new maths, and a lot of pure maths will never have direct real world applications but contributes to our overall understanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we’re looking at a new class of wonderful machines that can potentially make meaningful contributions to the sciences and maybe even humanity as a whole, in addition to far more insidious and destructive capabilities. You are right to point out that the ones who fully own and pilot the machines all belong to the “fuck science and humanity as a whole” group. So the likely outcomes don’t look good. Echoes the e…
Not in academia, but the amount of crying over rapid technological and intellectual progress because you're not getting credit validates everything critics say about you. No interest in human advancement, just attribution.
What I’m saying is that the ultimate goal of those in power are not these sorts of altruistic or even scientific pursuits, and that the massive labor disruption and hyper concentration of power in the hands of those who are proving time and again that advancement of science and benefiting the whole of humanity are actually antithetical to their goals is likely a bad thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Funny that the replies are dead. It's true that generally we shouldn't have AI output on HN but this case is an exception as we are explicitly asking for it, so it's interesting that people still flag the replies.
And this is really not OK. I've been a victim of the same filter. Dang/Tomhow, are you reading this? Would it make sense to modify your slop filter to avoid auto-flagging/killing replies that credit the LLM explicitly? Otherwise valid discussions will continue to get hosed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is extremely well known. Lots of people have tried to solve it and it stood basically stuck for 80 years. It is getting harder every day to downplay these models. Given its elementary nature (very easy to state), you can bet that a lot of very bright people have worked on it (I know of one MIT graduate who specialized in Geometry had a lot of interest in it).
I don't believe the result at all. I think it contains faulty logic. Perhaps the mathematicians involved can read the tea leaves and decide something interesting happened, but all this AI psychosis bullshit still refuses to accept that AIs do not, and cannot, have a mental model of the world. Moreover, model output is incredibly good at looking credible but being wrong. It has NEVER produced something correct for me…