171–180 of 245 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but the researchers were also largely relying on AI
“relying on” is misleading here relative to what the researchers have said. If I write a book and pass it through a spelling and polish checker, I still wrote the book and its core IP. I didn’t “rely on” the tool to create the IP.
The whole thing reeks of the desperation of an unprofitable venture-backed startup looking for its next PR win to keep the wind in the sails. But I think what’s being overlooked in the race to claim absolute credit is that both sides ultimately relied on a LLM (and one of OpenAI’s at that). Either a human researcher made a breakthrough discovery with the help of Codex, or the latest GPT model made a breakthrough with…
A company that can solve Millenium problems is somehow still can’t ever make profits. How did you come to that conclusion
The frontier labs are likely betting on lay observers (read: investors) confusing headline-grabbing results in abstract mathematics with phenomenal profitability in more grounded endeavours. There is an implicit fallacy that "If our models can solve mathematics they can do everything else."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the same way you rely on a keyboard or touchscreen to type this comment. It doesn't mean the tool is the brain behind the work.
frankly don’t know how to reply to these sorts of comments anymore
Extensive discussion on OpenAI's blog post on Navier-Stokes: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49613262 . Quanta Magazine article that also discusses some of the controversy: https://www.quantamagazine.org/ai-has-solved-one-of-maths-1-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but the researchers were also largely relying on AI
“relying on” is misleading here relative to what the researchers have said. If I write a book and pass it through a spelling and polish checker, I still wrote the book and its core IP. I didn’t “rely on” the tool to create the IP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
but the researchers were also largely relying on AI
In the same way you rely on a keyboard or touchscreen to type this comment. It doesn't mean the tool is the brain behind the work.
A better example would be playing chess against a player slightly stronger than me and using a chess computer to suggest some good moves. I could win, but it certianly wouldn't be just my brain that wins. It would be an amalgamation of my brain with a machine that suggests good moves.
One cannot simply reason by analogy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I think you can't just throw money randomly at problems and expect results unless you know a line of attack that can get you all the way. OpenAI chose the line of attack only after it became known to them via rumors. They "front-ran" the researchers.
Yes. What the headlines hailed as an AGI discovery the facts show more to be someone spending years mining for gold, rumor gets to OpenAI that there might be gold in this specific place, they mine there and instantly discover gold, then tell the world they’ve developed the worlds best gold finding/mining machine. Separate from all the allegations of more nefarious actions and ethical issues, that’s the most charitabl…
And according to them at some point they saw that one was close to being solved, so they pointed all the agents at it.
The same thing happens to humans - at this time there are no simple problems left, so solving the hard ones requires using prior knowledge and attempts at solving things.