361–370 of 569 posts
Let’s say it gets to the point that we reach superintelligence. All previous puzzles can be solved. But should they? Once you solve them, it’s done. What’s left? And where’s the fun and humanity? The Olympics exist because we want to see human skill, even though jet planes exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"AI solves niche thing you've never heard of" is a daily headline at this point. What's genuinely cool isn't that AI managed to solve some specific problem only a handful of people even cared about, it's that humanity can now cheaply clean up its backlog of such things.* That does not mean that specific instances of it are still very interesting though. This article is the "I had claude vibecode a thermostat for my b…
I disagree. This may be some niche thing that I've never heard of but a) it's still non-trivial; it still would have been science fiction to solve it a few years ago, and b) have you already forgotten the Navier Stokes drama? That is not some niche thing I've never heard of. It kind of blows my mind how quickly people have forgotten both the state of AI in ~2010, and the outlook . If you had asked 100 people in 2010…
As someone who frequents online and offline scavenger hunts and CTFs, I second the opinions around here that the task at hand must have been largely unknown. As I find it hard to believe no one from the entire scav hunt / CTF communities would try to fit a classic book cipher interpretation. Tells me more about the state of the art of those academic circles that failed to decipher this than about LLMs.
Prior to the "Elicitation" section, you'd think this article was written by a cryptographer or baroque historian who had been trying to solve this particular puzzle for years - failing embarrassingly until they presented the problem to Claude. However, as far as I can tell (I too am not a baroque historian), there isn't much reason to think this cipher was well-known or studied. But as they do eventually explain, the…
> Historically, many of these problems were bottlenecked by human attention. Someone had to care enough to spend hours or days reading obscure material, testing unpromising ideas, tracing references, and trying things that might go nowhere I wonder how many of the recent results are due to the fact that very few looked at the problem to start with. Still great results, but the general impression is that it's more abo…
Yes, even many of the proofs seem to be extremely long and complicated. The Navier-Stokes proof is 57 pages of very dense math and a pretty crazy amount of code: https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler/tree/main/Nav... Given the close relationship between compression and intelligence, I'm somewhat surprised at how poorly the cutting edge models do with being concise.
> how poorly the cutting edge models do with being concise
LLMs solve a Millennium prize problem. People complain the proof is too long, within a week. What a time to be alive!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I literally created a /plain-language skill.
in which one!
Eg. /wait-what https://github.com/mattpocock/skills/blob/main/skills/produc...