Live data from Hacker News

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

openai.com

241–250 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#241

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.

Never was.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be my reaction if we're discussing a blog post from OpenAI, yes. I would be looking at it extremely critically, wondering what they're misrepresenting to make it look cheaper, easier, and why they're trying to make it look like only their model could possibly do this. Look at their recent claims about their model "escaping" - there was literally a Guardian article calling them out for being hyperbolic! Again…

Hmm. But this level of skepticism looks performative and seems to serve as a signalling thing rather than a functional thing. You do you though. If OpenAI solves the millenial problems, my skepticism will only be restricted to the correctness of proof. Not that it was "marketing" haha

> looks performative

That's one of those phrases you can use to dismiss opposing viewpoints without actually engaging with them.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#243
post #235

Have blog posts replaced peer-reviewed academic papers when it comes to publishing advanced in science?

These is mostly mathematics, not science, and they link the paper in the post: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29a...

Mathematicians will tear it to pieces if any of it is fake!

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#244
post #9

How much do you all think it would cost to "buy" these advances from PhDs, practicing scientists?

You couldn't. PhDs have been working on these problems for decades. It wasn't for lack of trying that none of them could figure these solutions out!

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#245
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see this being important if you only care about the results as evaluations of AI progress, but if what you care about is the math itself why should you care about the prompt or anything other than the proof?

Understanding the process that led to the proof helps to understand how to do further work on top of it, which is the goal of most mathematical research. It's not as though mathematicians are going to go launch a startup operationalizing their knowledge of how densely hyperspheres may be packed.

[deleted]

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#246
post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We cannot psychologically stand that Redis is hyped by OpenAI: https://developers.openai.com/cookbook/examples/vector_datab... How are the sales going?

If you're actively throwing away brand new greenfield research because it was generated by a computer at a company that stans industry-spanning software so that you can stay mad at your pet celebrity project, you might be the problem.

You have to give AI one thing: It is vastly better at understanding text than AI boosters.

Which is a low bar, but still.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It’s not obvious at all. If it were obvious to you, it would’ve been to OpenAI. It’s in their interest to accurately predict demand. The assumption that OpenAI/Sam is both really powerful but simultaneously ignorant to know what others know as obvious is well.. just strange. Especially strange when OpenAI has more information on models, breakthrough and usage patterns and we don’t. I’m not participating in the slingi…

They very often have been in the past. Why do you think this time is different?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#248

I would love more time and money put into real-world problems by these companies. Climate, food insecurity, pollution, technology for convenience and/or to help people have a higher quality of life. I'm sure they must do some of this type of work, right?

We know how to solve food insecurity (in 1st world countries). We have plenty of food. Capitalism requires though throwing out food that can't be sold because billionaires find giving away things anathemic to their worldview. Get rid of billionaire sociopaths.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not obvious at all. If it were obvious to you, it would’ve been to OpenAI. It’s in their interest to accurately predict demand. The assumption that OpenAI/Sam is both really powerful but simultaneously ignorant to know what others know as obvious is well.. just strange. Especially strange when OpenAI has more information on models, breakthrough and usage patterns and we don’t. I’m not participating in the slingi…

They very often have been in the past. Why do you think this time is different?

“Often” is load bearing. I don’t think markets are more likely than not to be musical chair shaped. To make this conversation more concrete, give me a falsifiable prediction on there existing a bubble. And then I’ll tell you if I believe in it or not.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#250
post #238
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can see this being important if you only care about the results as evaluations of AI progress, but if what you care about is the math itself why should you care about the prompt or anything other than the proof?

Because the math isn't solely about the proof being correct. You don't need to take my word for it, here's one of the most famous living mathematicians' take on it: https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/slides/age-of-ai-icm-2026.p...

I can't help but wonder about the human motivation there though. For instance as it became increasingly clear that LLMs were capable (and becoming ever more capable) of competently solving meaningfully complex software development tasks, suddenly then there came to be a lot of talk of 'prompt engineering' as a skill. The chronology doesn't make a ton of sense unless you consider that the main motivation may have been simply looking for a way to keep software engineers in the loop.

Pure math is relatively outside my domain, so I find it difficult to grok the exact relevance of the various published discoveries beyond that they are not insignificant, and LLM competence is expanding quite steadily across the field. If this trend continues to the point of LLMs being able to competently expand pure math, it seems somewhat predictable to expect there to be a number of people aiming to find ways to try to keep human mathematicians in the loop.

I've no idea what I think about this one way or the other, beyond that it's certainly a phenomena and one that's going to drive motivated reasoning that may not be entirely sound.

Post reply on HN