841–850 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you possible say this sort of thing in context of what looks like a millenium prize being solved. I swear there's nobody blinder than those who won't see.
You have to look at the incentives
How can they "not rule out" that Tristan and Levent's data was used for training?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hm. Looks like its possible everyone behaved terribly here unfortunately. :/ I remained impressed by ChatGPT however!
Everyone?? No, most definitely OpenAI. But they have learnt their lesson, next time they won't reach out to who they stole it from, they will publish first.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recursive self improvement of their upcoming IPO value maybe. They are fluffy PR pieces otherwise.
How can you possible say this sort of thing in context of what looks like a millenium prize being solved. I swear there's nobody blinder than those who won't see.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a counterpoint per se, but I burned $50k recently on a much more modest math problem (result already known, just thought I had a sketch of a more interesting proof), and the LLM thought it had proved it within those bounds but had instead subtly fucked up the Lean definition. Take from that what you will. Not to mention, it's still very much up in the air whether the model derived the answer of its own accord or…
But the researchers also did their research using essentially the same models, so that isn’t a counterpoint to AI models being at the far frontier…
>> isn't a counterpoint
Where do we disagree?
I think this is clear evidence that AI models are now at the far frontier of mathematics innovation and discovery and exceed human limits. This specific problem having had a $1 million bounty on its head and still remaining unsolved for 26 years after the bounty was placed is pretty clear evidence that many of the world's best human mathematicians would have solved this problem if they could have, and none were able…
Not a counterpoint per se, but I burned $50k recently on a much more modest math problem (result already known, just thought I had a sketch of a more interesting proof), and the LLM thought it had proved it within those bounds but had instead subtly fucked up the Lean definition. Take from that what you will. Not to mention, it's still very much up in the air whether the model derived the answer of its own accord or…
Is this the one that was allegedly based on someone else's actual work & prompts? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49605915 https://bsky.app/profile/quantian.bsky.social/post/3muyhwbcd... https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf
> https://cims.nyu.edu/~tristanb/statement.pdf This really need to be a top-level story on HN.. I asked whether the model had been trained on, or had access to, our sessions in Codex, into which we had been putting all our drafts for the whole of this project. I was told the model did not look up user data. I asked again, about training, and I did not get an answer. This whole episode is more horrific than "AI is eat…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How can you possible say this sort of thing in context of what looks like a millenium prize being solved. I swear there's nobody blinder than those who won't see.
Because it seems like most of the work may have been done by human mathematicians and cribbed by OpenAI at the last minute
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> will soon far surpass that of humans To be fair, I think it's still an open question about how far it might surpass human capabilities. I think it's clear that its speed of development will be significantly faster, but it's technically not proven that the frontier and problems don't themselves become increasingly difficult faster than any acceleration in intelligence past the point of human training, data and exist…
Fields that allow verification, like math, will far surpass human level because they don't need human data for training. It's exactly the same as with Chess