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

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 1000 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#221

Post by eadwu »

unknownian wrote: post #199
sashank_1509 wrote: post #180

[flagged]

You shouldn't be getting downvoted for something that a majority of pure math and art enthusiasts believe to be true. The truth is many of these entrepreneurs and VCs are obsessed with AI not for money or human progress, but because it makes them feel closer to being a "god" rather than a mere mortal. Much of it (especially AI art) is out of spite for human creativity, which is done by mortals with limitations.

Taking the stance of moral superiority is kind of funny. And pure math and art enthusiasts don't think they are closer to being a "god" from understanding/"discovering" math?

Stop coping and deluding yourself mate.

To begin with, whether AI is the one doing the discovering or not makes no difference. Any "pure math" person would aim to understand regardless - and would be quite glad that they have a longer paved path.

Any mathematician in academic or industry is more than likely not a "pure math" person (tainted by capitalism).

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#223

Post by [deleted] »

uh_uh wrote: post #119
dist-epoch wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you want to bring cost into this argument. Even if the cost was $1 mil for these 10 problems, that's maybe 10-20 math researchers for a year. Do you really think that if you paid that to humans, they will deliver the same results?

It is comical at this point. Some people just can not stand the thought of AI actually delivering and are trying to find whatever ways to discredit it.

[deleted]

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#224

Post by scuppernong »

the people who crow in the comments of each of these posts about AI advances making human beings useless seem to bizarrely identify themselves with the AI, but none of them seem to have had any hand in building this technology. at best, they're power users. pure ressentiment.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#225

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

simianwords wrote: post #141
esperent wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody is claiming the results are false. We're saying look critically at the claims for how it was done, that it only cost $2000, etc. it would be extremely easy to run 100 sessions that failed, each costing ~$2000, and then just publishing an article about the one that succeeded, for example. This goes double since it's an internal secret model (Astra) so nobody else can verify the results.

Would this be your reaction if OpenAI also solved millennium problems? The point we are trying to make is that the significance of this news is much larger than the skepticism you are providing.

If OpenAI resolved the Riemann hypothesis by finding a nontrivial zero at 0.50000003 + 3531696584231.17843174i, that would be very cool and probably very impactful. But it might not necessarily demonstrate model capabilities beyond those which have already been demonstrated, especially if the session that found it was one of a thousand launched to explore different areas of the problem space.

More generally, do you expect that there's some capability threshold where people will no longer study or analyze AI model outputs, and instead just sit there slack jawed saying "so cool!" every time OpenAI announces novel ones? I don't really understand why that would be or why someone would want that. If you're interested in the pure experience of a complex machine outputting satisfying results, I'd recommend getting into sports cars.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#226

Post by lkirk »

c7b wrote: post #211
aabhay wrote: post #6

My main gripe here is the lack of transparency around the total experiment and construction. I doubt that they simply pointed their model at these ten specific problems alone and gave the model one shot; therefore the $2000 number could be completely misleading, similar to P-value hacking by not disclosing the total experimental setup. I want to know: 1. How many total problems were given to the model, and what perce…

I believe we're seeing a new kind of mathematics that will require completely new formats for publication, a bit similar to those used in experimental sciences. AI-powered mathematics should be fully reproducible, so it's the authors' responsibility to disclose the exact model type, inference settings/seeds and the full prompt history leading to the result. Of course that would ideally require open weights models. It…

I think this is a bit optimistic compared to my view (wrt portability). There's a large stack of software that is involved in training and probably less so in inference. I'm not saying it's impossible but there are definitely different levels of reproducibility and the academic incentive structure doesn't really prioritize reproducibility in my experience. I'm sure it varies quite a bit, I'd be curious to know how those in this problem space are thinking about reproducibility and at what level.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#227

Post by bwfan123 »

antirez wrote: post #100
robinhouston wrote: post #87

In a way the most remarkable thing about this is that it isn't even at the top of the HN homepage. Even if this is a step up from what we've seen before, we're no longer astonished by the idea that AI can make significant advances in mathematics and computer science.

This is not at the top as it is actively flagged by people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI. Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite.

> Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite

hah, sorry, we are plebs out here.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#228

Post by lifeisstillgood »

simianwords wrote: post #163
lifeisstillgood wrote: post #47

On the token limits etc - one assumes that OpenAI et al are able to “hire expert in field, and let them spend the equivalent of a million dollars of tokens” because they are not actually selling their complete compute 24 hrs a day, so the cost internally is a negligible (ish) electricity bill. Which is very suggestive - if after everything they are not fully loaded then the next gazillion data centres being built loo…

I love how people come up with creative ideas to prove the bubble. This one is even more ridiculous - that OpenAI had spare compute to advance mathematics proves that data centres will not be needed. WHAT. If anything it proves more data centres are needed. That's literally the only reasonable conclusion from this news.

Sorry I thought that a bubble was widely accepted.

Are you arguing there is not an AI bubble, and that all the DC buildout is fine, going to be profitable etc?

I am not looking for a online slanging match - just looking for a different point of view

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#230

Post by ltitu »

antirez wrote: post #100
robinhouston wrote: post #87

In a way the most remarkable thing about this is that it isn't even at the top of the HN homepage. Even if this is a step up from what we've seen before, we're no longer astonished by the idea that AI can make significant advances in mathematics and computer science.

This is not at the top as it is actively flagged by people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI. Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite.

We cannot psychologically stand that Redis is hyped by OpenAI:

https://developers.openai.com/cookbook/examples/vector_datab...

How are the sales going?

Post reply on HN