Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

rough-ideas.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 70 posts

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#61

Post by atleastoptimal »

znnajdla wrote: post #56
atleastoptimal wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could say that about every scientific/mathematical breakthrough. Einstein's Special relativity depended heavily on Lorentz's work, the Michelson-Morley experiments, Maxwell's equations. Grigori Perelman, the only person to have solved a Millenium Prize problem, noted how his work was only possible due to Richard S. Hamilton's work on Ricci flow. Most scientific breakthroughs are just the completing the last 5% of…

> That an AI was able to synthesize all the work and bring it forward But that's not what it did. A mathematician literally prompted it towards that, helping it every step of the way for years. And only the mathematician was able to make the AI do that. Anybody else with the same AI could not do the same thing. If you think it was the AI that solved a Millennium Prize, then why don't you try using ChatGPT to get a Mi…

>If you think it was the AI that solved a Millennium Prize, then why don't you try using ChatGPT to get a Millennium Prize?

The model which did the NS solution is not yet available to the public, and it required over 15 million dollars of tokens (based on API pricing) to produce the solution.

>And only the mathematician was able to make the AI do that. Anybody else with the same AI could not do the same thing.

That is only speculation, the total sum of the prompt's help to the model could have just been suggesting research directions. Also mathematicians talk to each other and use/learn from each others' research all the time. Should every mathematician, in order to produce a "legitimate" proof, lock themselves in a room for the entire duration of their work and ensure no one else helped?

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#62

Post by matteoraso »

znnajdla wrote: post #57
matteoraso wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data" thing, modern AI can make their own math data to train on with RLVF. This new model is legitimately on a different plane of existence from modern mathematicians.

My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you th…

I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#63

Post by lolakutty »

scotty79 wrote: post #60
lolakutty wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>entirety of current human achivement.. The right way to look at it is that LLMs help us to maximize the utility of the entirety of current human achievement/knowledge by discovering obscure connections in it.

So pretty much the same thing that humans do. New things come out of those connections.

Yea, it is a better search tool than humans, as computers always were....

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#64

Post by no-name-here »

WarmWash wrote: post #38

I'm continually perplexed by people's perception that AI would be incapable of generating new ideas or discoveries, even years ago. Deterministic machines do the same stuff again and again. Add entropy and they do new original stuff. Add a checker or verifier and you can filter for new stuff that is better. At the very least here, you now have evolution. There is nothing that is particularly compelling about a system…

> I'm continually perplexed by people's perception that AI would be incapable of generating new ideas or discoveries, even years ago.

It's still an incredibly common claim, at least on places like Reddit. Perhaps Doctrow has been pushing the idea or something?

And Zitron claimed that years ago AI was already as good as it was ever going to be - like Zitron, I imagine a lot of people haven't changed their opinions in recent years even as AI advanced.

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#65

Post by scotty79 »

lolakutty wrote: post #63
scotty79 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So pretty much the same thing that humans do. New things come out of those connections.

Yea, it is a better search tool than humans, as computers always were....

The qualitative difference is that it searches semantically across unstructured data and is able to cleverly combine related searches into an answer.

Imagine SQL but the queries mostly write themselves and database is just entirety of human knowledge with no formalization. If you were to create such thing 7 years ago you'd say somebody expects a miracle out of you. I don't get why so many people have trouble recognizing it now as such.

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#66

Post by znnajdla »

matteoraso wrote: post #62
znnajdla wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you th…

I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".

I think you're not aware of the specifics of this case. A mathematician worked on the prompts for over a year to get this proof. Look up the details.

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#67

Post by arw0n »

znnajdla wrote: post #57
matteoraso wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data" thing, modern AI can make their own math data to train on with RLVF. This new model is legitimately on a different plane of existence from modern mathematicians.

My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you th…

We don't know what the prompts were though. Terence Tao showed of some of his, and they are indeed huge, with lots of context, things that might work, things he knows don't etc. What we do know about this, is that 10k agents worked together on this. The initial prompt, while probably still very relevant, would get diluted over time. We simply don't know the level of inolvement of humans in reaching this proof.

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#68

Post by EastLondonCoder »

anonymous_user9 wrote: post #30
EastLondonCoder wrote: post #15

For me it was a few years ago. I had seen a twitter comment referencing astrology in a spat with two black female musicians in the US. My preconception was to look up why that kind of superstition was prevalent in those circles. The answer I got from chapgpt was essentially that it has very little to do with superstition and all to do with being able to use a language to talk about stuff while still not move outside…

> even understand without putting some serious study into the subject. Then how can you possibly know that it's true?

I can’t, and it’s not really the point. The point is that I got exposed to a new way of looking at a phenomenon that I haven’t thought about before.

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#69

Post by znnajdla »

arw0n wrote: post #67
znnajdla wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you th…

We don't know what the prompts were though. Terence Tao showed of some of his, and they are indeed huge, with lots of context, things that might work, things he knows don't etc. What we do know about this, is that 10k agents worked together on this. The initial prompt, while probably still very relevant, would get diluted over time. We simply don't know the level of inolvement of humans in reaching this proof.

My point is if you're not a mathematician on the level of Terence Tao you wouldn't have been able to get this result.

Thus, AI cannot be credited with the result. Because it's not AI that did it, it's the human that used it as a tool to get the result.

Re: My Mental Model of AI Broke on September 8

#70

Post by lolakutty »

scotty79 wrote: post #65
lolakutty wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, it is a better search tool than humans, as computers always were....

The qualitative difference is that it searches semantically across unstructured data and is able to cleverly combine related searches into an answer. Imagine SQL but the queries mostly write themselves and database is just entirety of human knowledge with no formalization. If you were to create such thing 7 years ago you'd say somebody expects a miracle out of you. I don't get why so many people have trouble recogniz…

Yes, it is a very efficient search tool for existing data..
Post reply on HN