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

791–800 of 1000 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#791

Post by lioeters »

Chance-Device wrote: post #687
cmdli wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like they are making a clear argument: models are getting worse for certain domains even while they are getting better at others. I don't know if I agree with that but it doesn't seem like an irrational claim and does seem credible to me.

I just don’t think it’s true, or is significant enough to matter to the direction of travel of AI even if there were something to it. It’s another cope post being lobbed at the idea of AI going somewhere and I’m sick of them.

"The sooner you can be broken out of your denial about all this the better, and we can start actually taking you seriously."

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#792

Post by nilkn »

rencrisa wrote: post #779
nilkn wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the Lean proof that a nonsofic group exists (34,440 lines): https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/blob/main/NonSoficGroup... This is an extraction from that of the actual theorem statement (39 lines): https://github.com/openai/ten-proofs/blob/94bc0feb6a9ff12c7d...

It may be for this theorem there's a succinct description, but still needs to be checked carefully. However, there are others that are non-trivial.

In some cases you're right, but I think that's often a symptom of mathematics in Lean being relatively immature (i.e., it will get much easier with time). Even then, verifying the statement in Lean is correct is still much easier than verifying the natural language proof is correct.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#793

Post by dwroberts »

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.

Can someone explain why we’re not using it to solve the obvious big conjectures/problems though? If this stuff is solved, why isn’t Riemann the first thing to go? Even if it means a fund of several hundred $k to let it churn on it.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#794

Post by Levitz »

tyre wrote: post #745
attila-lendvai wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the fact that the useless left/right divide is still so widely used shows that manipulation is working well even pre LLMs... when it comes to the important question, then both "sides" are the same team. or if you want it with a pinch of humor: when a boot is on your face, it makes precious little difference whether it's the left or the right boot. (i lived the first 10 years of my life in communism)

If you think that the American Left is anything like communism, I’m sorry, but, respectfully, I can’t take your comments seriously. The left in the US would be center-right in Europe, who are certainly not communist (they have separate parties that are communists!) Even the socialist strain of the US has nothing to do with socialism scaremongering about Venezuela, etc.

The "left" as in the party, sure, not that much of an authoritarian leaning.

The "left" as in the pervasive group that crawled out of Tumblr, took hold of Twitter back in the day, and has a stronghold on Reddit now? Those do care about what you can say, think, watch and read, and the more they can control, the better. The US right can only dream to have half as much control as the left has had in the last three decades.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#795

Post by throwaw12 »

This proves solving open problems in Mathematics were a search problem.

But it might be not good for human brains, because we trained our brains with these problems and our brain optimized search space in some ways, and yes, we also couldn't solve some these problems.

Now imagine someone gets stuck with a problem which could become its own theory, but they will solve it with LLMs and move on to solve their primary problem, because they don't realize how other problem was a big deal. If theory is not formalized, then it won't contribute to the search space for other person, solving different problem.

All in all:

* people's brain will be shaped differently

* we will lose search space optimizations in our brains

* we lose new theory contributions, which increases the search space to help solve other problems

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#796

Post by Levitz »

scns wrote: post #670
lettergram wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My guess is that, in the US, the right will cynically adopt manipulation to great effect and the left will take a moral stand against shady practices and lose elections. I think that statement may itself highlight how prevalent manipulation is. I fully anticipate all groups to continue maximal manipulation they can. One thing with LLMs is that it'll be a far less unified view, so a "divide and conquer" strategy is…

It is way harder to manipulate people to do the right thing i think.

It's harder to convince people to all agree on the same, different from the norm, thing.

If you've got 5 people in a car and you play ABBA in every road trip, then one day you suggest to change, the problem is not in being okay with "something else", but on agreeing what that other thing should be, set against the already known thing.

That's why there's so much infighting in the left.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#797

Post by hibikir »

mekael wrote: post #654
gste wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will be broken out of their denial by actual economic growth. That's what this is all meant to be for... I think we might start seeing some surprising numbers.

But who benefits from that economic growth? If it's only the capital owning class, and the rest of us are left in the dust, then the growth is irrelevant. I ,for one, have read enough history to know that it's never the proles who end up benefiting.

I suspect that you have not read enough them. Ask someone in China (which yes, still has a capita owning class) if the proles were better off 50 years ago or now. The only real probes we have now in the west is that we have failed at housing, precisely because instead of growth, we have made many choices to increase returns for old people, and insufficient taxes for real estate.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#798

Post by nightsd01 »

fckgw wrote: post #671
gste wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People will be broken out of their denial by actual economic growth. That's what this is all meant to be for... I think we might start seeing some surprising numbers.

How do I directly benefit from this supposed "growth"? Seems like its just making things worse for most people.

Plenty of people are making money from AI? And I am not sure I've seen it "making things worse for most people" yet, do you have a source behind this?

If your source is AI layoffs, there were plenty of layoffs with the invention of the horseless carriage, but that doesn't mean it made humans worse off overall.

There are reasons to be skeptical about progress and AI and all that but the 'making things worse for most people' thing you mentioned seems yet to be based in any reality

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#800

Post by hibikir »

ck2 wrote: post #641
IncreasePosts wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do humans "invent knowledge"? Is your argument that the answer to these questions already existed in the training set? Why didn't any human recognize that before?

humans discover a lot of things by trial and error (aka what I meant by "invent knowledge") basically everything Benjamin Franklin did was trial and error because no-one understood what electricity was in the slightest almost everything Edison did was trial and error too, he had his lab try thousands of materials for his long lasting lightbulb filament even the most advanced "AI" today is just machine-learning going…

Have you seen how it debugs? It's trial and error. As the most reasonable hypothesis fail, new data is found, and it keeps iterating. It's not a human intelligence, but if it has an issue, it's not some mysterious creativity anima in the heart of man.

I have seen it produce tentative genetics for experiments, just like a scientist does. Then the data comes in and it can evaluate the data from the experiment just as well. One just had to give it a lab budget.

Post reply on HN