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

261–270 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#261

Post by shimman »

frozenseven wrote: post #57
0x5FC3 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say the lack of skepticism is nuts, honestly.

Capabilities of this sort have already been demonstrated by independent parties, and models have consistently gotten better at this. Yes, insinuating that mathematicians and scientists are secretly solving decades-old problems on OpenAI's behalf is an insane conspiracy theory.

That's not what is being purported, you're doing a complete misdirect. OpenAI wants to IPO so Altman can potentially capture a trillion dollar bag, with so much money on the line + betting US foreign policy on it as well (pax silica) it's not hard to be overly suspicious of such claims. Especially in the context of a group of people wanting to generate a new decades long cold war in the form of China being the new big baddie (just ignore how destructive, both self- and towards the world, the US has become).

These companies desperately want a return to serfdom. If they didn't come off as so anti-human the public backlash wouldn't be so great.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#262

Post by matteoraso »

Chance-Device wrote: post #183
antirez wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI Yes. And there are many of them. I wonder what would help them come to terms with it. Seriously, people are going to be grieving over this. Loss of identity, loss of social standing, ideas of entire future lives that will now never happen. The greatest crime people may hold AI guilty of is taking away their dreams.

People have had to deal with getting their jobs automated away for centuries. None of this is new, and perhaps reminding ourselves of this is the best way to cope.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#263

Post by moscoe »

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 guess people will always find something to gripe about.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#265

Post by globular-toast »

slashdave wrote: post #216
christofosho wrote: post #134

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?

Seriously? We already know how to solve all of these issues. What we lack is collective political will.

We only know how to do it by means of considerable sacrifice. That's why nobody wants to do it. Solving the issue would be doing it without sacrifice or somehow getting us to do it regardless.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#266

Post by mathisfun123 »

don_esteban wrote: post #93
mathisfun123 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you but there's no need for exaggeration; ain't no high school student writing this: > In particular, proofs for special graph classes, constructions of cycle covers with some edges covered other than twice, bounded-length or prescribed-cycle variants, reductions to another unproved conjecture, computational verification through any fixed graph size, and candidate counterexamples without a compl…

the fact that such things have to be explicitly in the prompt points to the fact that the underlying system is still far from where it needs to be (basically, lacks basic understanding what a proof is)

you cannot be serious

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#267

Post by bencarmin »

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.

This comment is about the tier of a Reddit atheist going to a funeral and telling a grieving family that "haha grandma is dead and there is no heaven".

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#268

Post by mathisfun123 »

simianwords wrote: post #220
esperent wrote: post #164

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

> If OpenAI solves the millenial problems, my skepticism will only be restricted to the correctness of proof. Not that it was "marketing" haha

Company X does not make money from proving theorems but does make money from selling you a service which supposedly proves theorems. Company X then proves some theorems and explicitly calls out they were very cheap to prove using its service.

And you think you're actually clever for taking these facts at face value? Interesting.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#269

Post by Chance-Device »

matteoraso wrote: post #262
Chance-Device wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI Yes. And there are many of them. I wonder what would help them come to terms with it. Seriously, people are going to be grieving over this. Loss of identity, loss of social standing, ideas of entire future lives that will now never happen. The greatest crime people may hold AI guilty of is taking away their dreams.

People have had to deal with getting their jobs automated away for centuries. None of this is new, and perhaps reminding ourselves of this is the best way to cope.

I understand your sentiment, but I think this really is something different. This isn’t a craft going away, or even an industry being replaced, it’s potentially everything we do. It’s the ground being pulled away beneath people’s feet, everyone, everywhere all at once. I think the vacuum it leaves in people’s lives needs to be filled with something, and I haven’t heard any good ideas about this or how the transition should be managed at all.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#270

Post by oklahomasports »

yaqubroli wrote: post #43
raincole wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, OpenAI's take is correct here. If you're not convinced, here is how they prompted LLM: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/04d1d1e4-bc75-476a-97cf-49055cd98... [0] A slightly smarter highschooler could write these. I could write these. It's clear as day that the LLM, not the human, did the heavy lift. It'd be ridiculous to give full credit to whoever wrote the prompt. [0]: Not one of the proofs in the linked article, b…

The human provides the intention and the ability to appreciate the output. Tools do “heavy lifting” all the time, but we still primarily credit the humans who use them precisely because they made the choice to use them. Provability is just going the way of computation. John Napier had to manually compute logarithm tables over decades and was recognised for his work; now that same work could be performed by a 10 year…

Are you playing dumb? Using power tools to build furniture is very different than using an ai robot to carve a statue or whatever.
Post reply on HN