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

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#811

Post by Marha01 »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #655
Marha01 wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What is step 3? "Massive Economic Abundance" implies massive increase in produced goods. This implies massive deflation, ceteris paribus. So step 3 could be simply printing money to pay for UBI. Deflation from AI productivity increase and inflation from UBI money printing will cancel out.

This doesn't make any sense. For money to work it has to represent some real value, something that has some scarcity to it such as potatoes or hours of human labor. Ultimately it is just a decoupler in a barter system, a universally recognized IOU. Why would someone give me a car in exchange for UBI-scrip when that UBI-scrip has no inherent scarcity or value and can be produced in infinite supply by the government ?

> Why would someone give me a car in exchange for UBI-scrip when that UBI-scrip has no inherent scarcity or value and can be produced in infinite supply by the government ?

UBI script will have some value, I am proposing printing enough money just to combat AI productivity-induced deflation, not infinite UBI money.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#812

Post by andai »

oblio wrote: post #710
roncesvalles wrote: post #682

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It has had significant quality of life increases for me. I use LLMs for everything from: - travel and restaurant recommendations. my last few outings have been entirely LLM-advised and they turned out excellent. LLMs seem to have ingested every single Google review, photo, and menu of every business on Earth and can answer very nuanced questions like "is the garlic chicken at garnished with coriander?" - fitness, nut…

1. Do frontier lab LLMs make your rent cheaper? Groceries? Healthcare? 2. Do LLMs reduce the loneliness epidemic? 3. Do they reduce population aging in almost all counties around the world? 4. Do they reduce political polarization? 5. Do they bolster democracies? 6. Do they decelerate climate change and general environmental destruction? 7. Do they accelerate sustainability and the circular economy (not circular fina…

> do they make your rent cheaper

Well maybe not the LLMs, but AI and robotics have a lot of potential here.

https://youtu.be/bsNTv8t239Y

It's still the early days though. Try again in 15 years!

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#813

Post by Marha01 »

QwenGlazer9000 wrote: post #613
Marha01 wrote: post #579

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> remember that gpt 4o was popular among those who had ai as a romantic partner I suspect GPT 5.6 would be even better at it, if given the same sycophantic system prompt and lack of guardrails.

Dude it's not a system prompt, it's the training.

I highly doubt that.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#815

Post by andai »

c0rruptbytes wrote: post #787
piker wrote: post #2

I don’t feel the existential dread of mathematicians is correct. It seems to me in fact these results are bringing math mainstream. I now personally look forward to the interpretations and discussions of the significance of such results by human mathematicians. Now I understand that it’s mostly the super stars benefitting from the increased attention. Folks who are less established don’t share in that glory. But on t…

i think i agree, we are going to have /more/ math and now need /more/ mathematicians (we are seeing https://vibemathed.com/ ) these LLMs are great are generating arguments but they don't ask questions, we will need mathematicians to shepherd them into more discoveries i really want to see open weight models crack some breakthroughs

> LLMs don't ask questions

Why don't they? That sounds like an important problem to solve.

Along with the fact that they can't learn anything (after the training stops).

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#816

Post by arbitrary_name »

orangecat wrote: post #665
mekael wrote: post #656

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will entail an immense amount of violence to be undertaken by the working class against those in power, unless you think they'll gladly give up all of their ill gotten gains out of the goodness of their black little hearts.

In fact I don't think that rich people are cartoon villains who enjoy watching the poors starve. If AI leads to greatly increased productivity, then at existing tax rates there will be more than enough to provide good living conditions for people who can't find jobs.

so why do we have the poverty and inequality today?

why do they spend the money they do on the things they do?

they are not altruists and they never will be.

they could change millions of lives today, but most do not.

pure naivete.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#817

Post by jstummbillig »

plaidfuji wrote: post #674

Any computable problem will eventually fall to computers. LLMs have made math proofs more computable, in the sense that a computer can both generate potential solutions and check the validity of its solutions on its own, with a reasonable chance of converging on something correct. I assume this was already doable to some extent, but it seems like it’s now exponentially easier. That still doesn’t mean that all math is…

> Any computable problem will eventually fall to computers.

I think the question, that we keep stumbling over, is what problems are computable.

> But if these things were as revolutionary as people promote/fear them to be, you should immediately point them at the highest value math problems and see progress. Like the Millenium Prize problems. Haven’t seen a solution to those.

Let the goalpost shifting continue. It'll buy us another half year or so.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#818

Post by pama »

sdenton4 wrote: post #702
pama wrote: post #514

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is unfair to dismiss contributions to decades old open problems as equivalent to calculating more digits of pi. It missed the mark by a lot—as does the two bucket simplifaction.

Five (maybe six?) of the results are improvements on bounds. These kinds of problems tend to have some initial advances, and then stall out as the complexity of the bound skyrockets... until some grad student is bored enough to push the boundary. The big-O complexity of matrix multiplication is a good example of how this works: yeah, it's a useful problem, but the solutions are galactic algorithms, and increasingly c…

Your inverted logic does not hold. The fact that such useless problems for bounds exist does not mean that improving bounds is useless. 9 fields medals in the last twenty years, including the one to Terrence Tao, were for improvements on bounds. 3 of the 4 medals in 2022 were for bounds; 2 of these medals were in combinatorics.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#819

Post by slashdave »

enraged_camel wrote: post #377
slashdave wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> we are also seeing incredible advances in software performance Incredible? > open ai announced like 15% improvement by fixing gpu kernel issue That is... ordinary software optimization.

There's nothing ordinary about downloading a new GPU driver and having performance go up by 15%.

No, we do this kind of thing regularly. Optimizations often depend on the model that is using them. Namely, fusion techniques.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#820

Post by kortilla »

galleywest200 wrote: post #741
kortilla wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That presupposes that the left in the US wants to do the right thing. Something like government run grocery stores is not clearly correct and there is very little evidence supporting that it will work well yet it is a very popular leftist policy in New York.

City run grocery stores are certainly not evil.

Based on zero evidence. It’s very easy for a government to step in as a participant, ruin the profitability of a sector in an area, and offer a worse service.

They have no profit requirement or even revenue neutral requirement. So they can just operate poorly at a loss and still wreck other businesses because people will put up with breadlines to get bread for ultra cheap.

The general thing to watch out for with all of these “surely it can’t be evil to do nice thing X” is suicidal empathy. It can seem correct to your gut on the surface while it’s extremely destructive in the long term despite participants wanting to destroy something as an explicit goal.

Post reply on HN