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

351–360 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#351

Post by pfdietz »

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…

While you may want AI results to somehow "not count" if the methods weren't disclosed, that doesn't present these results from poisoning the well for others. Once a result (with verifiable proof object) is delivered, the problem is solved, regardless of whether methods were disclosed.

Methods are only really necessary for results at a meta level, about the design amd evaluation of AI math systems.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#352

Post by Alifatisk »

fooker wrote: post #329
Alifatisk wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate? Curious about this. Is this because LLMs have been geared towards understanding user user intent behind a prompt rather than following the instructions exactly?

There's a full fledged 'reasoning' step that basically expands your prompt. As long as you are not missing important information, how you word the prompt does not have any effect.

Oh yeah, I suspected it was something like this. Thanks!

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#353

Post by mungaihaha »

r0uv3n wrote: post #291
mungaihaha wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Grad students on zero pay solve problems like this everyday. What exactly is your point here?

Grad students do not solve problems such as the existence of non-sofic groups every day.

Plenty of 'advances in mathematics' done pre-llm, no?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#354

Post by monktastic1 »

danparsonson wrote: post #284
Chance-Device wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is exactly what is meant by “moving the goalposts”. And it’s a fairly well known expression applying wherever people retroactively change their requirements in reaction to those requirements having been met.

It's almost like I disagree with your use of the phrase in this context, rather than that I don't know the meaning of it.

So you defined your own idiosyncratic version of "moving the goalposts" and used it to rebut his argument, with a condescending "you understand that's how science works, right?"--instead of being honest that it is you who are changing the definition, and not his failure to understand anything.

I don't see how that's any better.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#355

Post by QwenGlazer9000 »

randomizedalgs wrote: post #318

After skimming some of the writeups, I'm surprised that the frontier internal model still writes just as poorly as Sol. Maybe good AI paper writing is further away than I thought...

You mean we're still gonna be employed doing the boring part while AI gets to do the fun part?

I'd honestly rather they just automate every job at that point.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#356

Post by gowld »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #198
danparsonson wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never understood all this talk about moving goalposts - you understand that's how science works, right? We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. If we never "moved the goalposts", we'd be stuck scoring the same goals over and over.

> We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. That's not what people mean when they say "moving the goalposts". It means that people are adamant that something wasn't important/hard/impressive once the "AI" solves it. And then they come up with another thing that needs to be solved in order to prove it is important/hard/impressive. And once that happens, they do it again. And ag…

What you are doing is "motte and bailey".

The motte is "AI useful". The bailey is "Singularity is nigh".

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#357

Post by gowld »

emceestork wrote: post #328
danparsonson wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Never understood all this talk about moving goalposts - you understand that's how science works, right? We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. If we never "moved the goalposts", we'd be stuck scoring the same goals over and over.

They aren't claiming that science doesn't progress by moving goal posts. They're talking about how critics of AI have claimed it isn't revolutionary/useful, then progressively changed what would it mean for AI to be actually revolutionary/useful. Not long ago many folks were saying AI was the same as the crypto bubble. No real useful technology and only hype.

Did you know that "revolutationary" is not equivalent to "useful", and "revolutionary" is quite ambiguous?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#358

Post by tomhow »

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.

It wasn't heavily flagged. It was pulled down by the flamewar detector due to the large number of comments, and it slid under the radar due to only hitting the front page during overnight hours on Friday night/Saturday morning. It still spent 10 hours on the front page, but all during off peak hours. I've now created a new copy of the post so it can have prime time exposure.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#360

Post by ck2 »

Chance-Device wrote: post #105

Pretty cool. The impact of AI is getting undeniable, there aren’t many positions left to move the goalposts to at this stage, next they’ll have to be outside the stadium entirely. The sooner people can be broken out of their denial about all this the better, and we can start actually taking it seriously.

"AI" has limits in that it cannot invent knowledge, it can only distill and search for patterns in existing knowledge

not sure how many will get this reference but "AI" for science and math is like super-shoes for runners

at first we are blown away by the impossible improvements including sub-2-hour realworld marathon and every other PR/CR/WR is dialed down

but then the improvements slow and reach a stall point because of the limit of technology and the source of the achievement

ie. sub-2-hour marathon yes, sub-1-hour never happening (rollerblade inline-skate record is 1-hour marathon)

Post reply on HN