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

Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

starfleetmath.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–119 of 119 posts

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#111

Post by JambalayaJimbo »

cubefox wrote: post #104
falcor84 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But the thing with "pure" math, is that it can unexpectedly get adulterated by debased concerns such as enabling cryptography for the world economy.

I doubt that pure mathematics can claim the success of cryptography. For example, no result from advanced mathematics is required to know that factoring the product of two large prime numbers is slow.

The fact that mathematicians cannot devise a method to factor that large product, despite large amounts of money and research time, is what’s valuable!

But even then your argument breaks down when you consider more complicated cryptographic structures.

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#112

Post by zamadatix »

esafak wrote: post #103
zamadatix wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this question just for mathematicians in isolation or does it imply the same for most other jobs too? I think the answer for the former is we don't, mathematics would become a hobby the same as we don't hire people to be human calculators anymore because we have machines better st it. For the latter, it depends - some say UBI while the machines do the work, others say dystopia ruled by the machines or their few ow…

It is for all jobs. We have to be open to new arrangements. I like the recent proposal ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47748123 ) to tax AI companies that destroy human demand. My point is we have to sort this out now because AI companies are quickly usurping power from labor, and if we wait there will be even more unrest, and worse.

This is pretty much the UBI take. I'm not sure I see a rush to get there before we've even figured out which jobs will actually be replaced and how much work that leaves us (paradoxically, we seem to do more and more work lately as technology enables tasks to be done faster) but I think funding UBI via AI is a nice answer as it kind of wraps itself in the scale of the impact it actually has.

There is real risk in doing it too early as well. Imagine if we thought the same ~50 years ago when microcomputers started to appear. If the tech companies had to pay the salaries of every displaced job we would have ended up with severely hampered progress on computers and then a job shortage as we realized there were just different jobs now, not necessarily no work quite yet.

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#113

Post by jibal »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #110
jibal wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You went deep ... and I for one appreciate it.

I mean, it doesn’t have to be deep to be meaningful. The connection between “needing to work” and “right to continue existing” is THE problem with society right now. You think AI boomers are paranoid because they think robots are going to replace the jobs? People are paranoid because they don’t know how they’re going to exist in a post-work world.

Boomers? I'm a boomer who retired 8 years ago. The youngest boomers hit retirement age in 3 years. It's not boomers who are worried.

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#114

Post by jibal »

jibal wrote: post #75
cubefox wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There still seems to be a difference between useless pure math research and useless science or useless philosophy. Science, even useless science, still has a subject matter that is relevant to us independently of science, the real world. And philosophy studies concepts (like "knowledge") that occur in natural language and thought, and those concepts are relevant to us independently of philosophy. But pure math is ent…

"useless" pure math often turns out to have scientific applications. And surely you don't mean all pure math, so your argument ends up being circular --- useless math is useless. You happen to think that this math is useless, but you might be, or turn out to be, wrong. Also, you're misusing the term "self-referential". You seem to mean that it's a closed system ... but it's not, since mathematicians interact with it.…

So, bad arguments followed by even worse arguments.

> I'll just point out that "so what" is not a counterargument.

It really is.

> Speed runners or chess champions or pi digit calculators don't confuse themselves with noble researchers advancing the frontier of human knowledge.

Yow.

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#115

Post by piloto_ciego »

jibal wrote: post #113
piloto_ciego wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, it doesn’t have to be deep to be meaningful. The connection between “needing to work” and “right to continue existing” is THE problem with society right now. You think AI boomers are paranoid because they think robots are going to replace the jobs? People are paranoid because they don’t know how they’re going to exist in a post-work world.

Boomers? I'm a boomer who retired 8 years ago. The youngest boomers hit retirement age in 3 years. It's not boomers who are worried.

Typo on my part, “doomers”

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#116

Post by cubefox »

JambalayaJimbo wrote: post #111
cubefox wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that pure mathematics can claim the success of cryptography. For example, no result from advanced mathematics is required to know that factoring the product of two large prime numbers is slow.

The fact that mathematicians cannot devise a method to factor that large product, despite large amounts of money and research time, is what’s valuable! But even then your argument breaks down when you consider more complicated cryptographic structures.

> The fact that mathematicians cannot devise a method to factor that large product, despite large amounts of money and research time, is what’s valuable!

Well, programmers couldn't devise such a method either. You seem to assume that mathematicians are better than them at finding efficient algorithms, which isn't very plausible.

> But even then your argument breaks down when you consider more complicated cryptographic structures.

Even if help of mathematics is needed there, applied — rather than pure — math might still be sufficient.

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#117

Post by jibal »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #115
jibal wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boomers? I'm a boomer who retired 8 years ago. The youngest boomers hit retirement age in 3 years. It's not boomers who are worried.

Typo on my part, “doomers”

Oh ... never mind! (In the voice of Gilda Radner.)

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#118

Post by dudeinjapan »

energy123 wrote: post #73
esafak wrote: post #8

Isn't this sucking the fun out of math? It's not like we're going to get any tangible benefit out of them, so why not let mathematicians keep their jobs?

I don't envy the talented young research mathematicians starting their career now. While there's still space to distinguish yourself (inventing completely new mathematics), the path to recognition is narrow.

> Inventing completely new mathematics

There will be fewer good mathematicians, but more great mathematicians!

Re: Solving 20 Erdős Problems with 20 Codex Accounts Running in Parallel

#119

Post by piloto_ciego »

jibal wrote: post #117
piloto_ciego wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Typo on my part, “doomers”

Oh ... never mind! (In the voice of Gilda Radner.)

Hah! Fair call out though, just a typo from me. Hope your Saturday is going well.
Post reply on HN