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

OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

the-decoder.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 258 posts

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#231

Post by wasabi991011 »

bootsmann wrote: post #197
scosman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saying it isn't useful is a bit of an overstatement. It can search, churn through 500k words in a few minutes, and come back with summaries, answers, and sources for each point. Should you blindly trust the summary? No. Should you verify key claims by clicking through to the source? Yes. Is it still incredibly useful as a search tool and productivity booster? Absolutely.

If I knew what’s in the paper I don’t need the summary but if I don’t know what’s in the paper I cannot possibly judge the accuracy of its summary.

If we're talking about literature search here, the workflow is

1. Get list of sources and their summaries from an LLM.

2. Read through, find a paper who's title and summary seem interesting to you.

3. Follow the LLM's link, usually to an arXiv posting.

4. Read the title and abstract on arXiv. You can now judge the accuracy of the LLM's summary.

It's really easy to tell if the LLM is accurate when it is linking to something which has its own title and summary, which is almost always the case in literature search.

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#232

Post by ares623 »

throwaway-0001 wrote: post #225
malfist wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, someone skilled could spend an hour or so photoshoping someone nude. But any teenager can do that to a classmate in 30 seconds with ai

So just because the poor can do what the rich could do before what it means? Before only rich can afford to pay a pro to do photoshop. Now any poor person can get. So why when rich can is fine and when everyone can is a problem?

Uhh it wasn’t fine when the rich did it?

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#233

Post by wasabi991011 »

opdahl wrote: post #194
happy_dog1 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder whether for a lot of the search & literature review-type use-cases where people are trying to use GPT-5 and similar we'd honestly be much better off with a really powerful semantic search engine? Any time you ask a chatbot to summarize the literature for you or answer your question, there's a risk it will hallucinate and give you an unreliable answer. Using LLM-generated embeddings for documents to retrieve…

Since you specifically were wondering if something like this exist, I feel okay with mentioning my own tool https://keenious.com since I think it might fit your needs. Basically we are trying to combine the benefits of chat with normal academic search results using semantic search and keyword search. That way you get the benefit of LLMs but you’re actually engaging with sources like a normal search. Hope it was what…

Not who you were responding to, but your tool seems interesting, I'll check it out!

Can I ask, how did you build your search database?

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#234

Post by phplovesong »

Jweb_Guru wrote: post #43
phplovesong wrote: post #29

How fing obvious was it that AI slop did not do anything other than scarpe some websites.

I felt like I was going crazy when people uncritically accepted the original claim from OpenAI. Have people actually used these models?

From what i have seen, people using AI somehow get the mindset that the AI generated result is "godlike" and the "ultimate truth". Its really, really scary and im not that hopeful for what we will see int he next decade.

Once i told a coworker that a piece if his code looked rather funky (without doing a more deep CR), and he told me its "proven correct by AI". I was stunned, and asked him if he knows how LLMs generate their responses? He was genuinely in the belief that it was in fact "artificial intelligence" and was some sort of "all knowing entity".

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#235

Post by watwut »

glenstein wrote: post #131
card_zero wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the first guy said "solved [...] by realizing that it had actually been solved 20 years ago", and the second guy said "found solutions to 10 (!) previously unsolved Erdös problems". Previously unsolved. The context doesn't make that true, does it?

Right, and I would even go a step further and say the context from SebastienBubeck is stretching "solved" past its breaking point by equating literature research with self-bootsrapped problem solving. When it's later characterized as "previously unsolved" it's doubling down on the same equivocation. Don't get me wrong, effectively surfacing unappreciated research is great and extremely valuable. So there's a real thi…

> Don't get me wrong, effectively surfacing unappreciated research is great and extremely valuable. So there's a real thing here but with the wrong headline attached to it.

If I said that I solved a problem, but actually I took a solution for an old book, people would call me a liar. If I was prominent person, it would be academic fraud incident. No one would be saying that "I did extremely valuable thing" or "there was a real thing here".

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#236

Post by blitzar »

frays wrote: post #62
llm_nerd wrote: post #46

Yann LeCun's "Hoisted by their own GPTards" is fantastic.

I might be missing context here, but I'm surprised to see Yann using language that plays on 'retard.' That seems out of character for him - more like something I'd expect from Elon Musk. What's the context I'm missing?

You have been Hoisted with your own retard

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#237

Post by Timsky »

kianN wrote: post #180
Timsky wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for sharing! I like your dendrogram-like circular graphs! They are way more intuitive. That could be a nice companion for a bibliometrix/biblioshiny library for bibliometric analysis https://www.bibliometrix.org/ . I tried "Deep Dive" with my own request, and ... it unfortunately stops at the end of "Organizing results". Maybe I should try again later.

Haha that’s embarrassing! The progress bars are an estimate. If a paper has a lot of citations, it may take a bit longer than the duration of the bars but it will hopefully finish relatively soon! Edit: Got home and checked the error logs. There was a very long search query with no results. Bug on my end to not return an error in that case. If you were hoping to use the citation network, it needs the url as input rat…

Today I tried with an old (1935) fundamental Bell Labs paper on harmonic distortions caused by ferromagnets in communication lines. It is for sure cited more times than it appears in Google Scholar: 25. DOI:10.1002/j.1538-7305.1935.tb00418.x

Here is the list of what the system proposed to take a look at: 1. Vascular at‐risk genotypes and disease severity in Lebanese sickle cell disease patients 2. Narrow band filter for solar spectropolarimetry based on Volume Holographic Gratings 3. Communication from Space: Radio and Optical by S. Weinreb 4. An Adaptive and High Coding Rate Soft Error Correction Method in Network-on-Chips 5. Plasma hemostasis in patients with coronavirus infection caus...

I would expect more papers like 3rd as the topic is communication systems. Unfortunately, inside the ref.3 there is noting said about distortions.

Maybe it is indeed a linguistical curse of this topic...

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#238

Post by glenstein »

watwut wrote: post #235
glenstein wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, and I would even go a step further and say the context from SebastienBubeck is stretching "solved" past its breaking point by equating literature research with self-bootsrapped problem solving. When it's later characterized as "previously unsolved" it's doubling down on the same equivocation. Don't get me wrong, effectively surfacing unappreciated research is great and extremely valuable. So there's a real thi…

> Don't get me wrong, effectively surfacing unappreciated research is great and extremely valuable. So there's a real thing here but with the wrong headline attached to it. If I said that I solved a problem, but actually I took a solution for an old book, people would call me a liar. If I was prominent person, it would be academic fraud incident. No one would be saying that "I did extremely valuable thing" or "there…

Some of the most important advancements in the history of science came from reviewing underappreciated discoveries that already existed in the literature. Mendel's work on genetics went under appreciated for decades before being effectively rediscovered, and proved to be integral to the modern synthesis, which provided a genetic basis for evolution, and is the most important development in the history of our understanding of evolution since Darwin and Wallace's original formulation.

Henrietta Leavitt's work on the relation between a stars period of pulsation and brightness was tucked away in a Harvard Journal, which had revolutionary potential not appreciated until Hubbel recalled and applied her work years later to demonstrate galactic redshift in Andromeda, understanding that it was an entirely separate galaxy, that it was receding away from us and contributing to the bedrock of modern cosmology.

The pathogenic basis for ulcers was proposed in the 1940s, which later became instrumental to explaining data in the 1980s and led to a Nobel prize in 2005.

It is and has always been fundamental to the progress of human knowledge to not just propose new ideas but to pull pertinent ones from the literature and apply them in new contexts, and depending on the field, the research landscape can be inconceivably vast, so efficiencies in combing through it can create the scaffolding for major advancements in understanding.

So there's more going on here than "lying".

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#239

Post by pera »

skeeter2020 wrote: post #91
pera wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Heh stockholders are not hallucinating: They know very well what they are doing.

retail investors? no way. The fever-dream may continue for a while but eventually it will end. Meanwhile we don't even know our full exposure to AI. It's going to be ugly and beyond burying gold in my backyard I can't even figure out how to hedge against this monster.

Yeah no I didn't mean retail investors, OpenAI is not publicly traded, but yeah I do share your concern...

Re: OpenAI researcher announced GPT-5 math breakthrough that never happened

#240

Post by saghm »

Frieren wrote: post #110
gpjt wrote: post #68

To be fair to the OpenAI team, if read in context the situation is at worst ambiguous. The deleted tweet that the article is about said "GPT-5 just found solutions to 10 (!) previously unsolved Erdös problems, and made progress on 11 others. These have all been open for decades." If it had been posted stand-alone then I would certainly agree that it was misleading, but it was not. It was a quote-tweet of this: https:…

> "GPT-5 is really good at literature search, it 'solved' an apparently-open problem by finding an existing solution" Survivor bias. I can assure you that GPT-5 fucks up even relatively easy searches. I need to have a very good idea how the results looks like and the ability to test it to be able to use any result from GPT-5. If I throw the dice 1000 times and post about it each time that I got a double six. Am I the…

One time when I was a kid my dad and I were playing Yahtzee, and he rolled five 5s on his first roll of the turn. He was absolutely stunned, and at the time I was young enough that I didn't understand just how unlikely it was. If I only I knew that I was playing against the best dice thrower!
Post reply on HN