Like what exactly? As far as I can tell, the drug discovery is fizzling out, so it's not talked about much. Toxicity, for one, is a big problem, and the AI is not going to tell you whether the new drug it just concocted is suitable for humans or not. Small model solves an easy problem; big model solves a challenging problem. I wouldn't call those problems; they are more like invented puzzles. Perfect match for the AI…
Whatever you say.
Have an AI model prove that P is not equal to NP. Then I’ll be impressed.
I mean that a human is ready to jump in at any point an "exception" happens. Example: During parking, which I witness daily in my building, it happens all the time. 1. Car gets stuck trying to park, blocking either the garage or a whole SF street 2. A human intervenes, either in person (most often) or seemingly remotely, to get the car unstuck.
I'm not in the US and have never seen a self-driving car. Can you explain how a human intervenes in person? Do you mean these cars have a human driver on board? Or the passenger drives? Or another car drops off a driver? Or your car park is such an annoying edge case that a driver hangs around there all the time just to help park the cars?
It’s a garage where regular cars and self-driving cars “coexist”. The self-driving cars have human minions walking 24 hours in the garage, employed by Waymo/Google, to make sure the self-driving geniuses are able to successfully park without blocking other cars or the street permanently. If a self-driving car gets stuck, a human walks up to it, unlocks it via a phone and parks it like any other car.
I mean strong human contestants would also know a lot of similar problems, I'm not seeing how it's fundamentally different or not a meaningful achievement.
Do you also think that IBM Watson won Jeopardy primarily because of its ability to reason? Or due to its massive internal database combined with superhuman button pressing skills?
As far as I know Watson was actually smoke and mirrors, relying on a ton of human hand written rules and didn't do any reasoning at all. It was a giant program written in PROLOG, not machine learning.
Have an AI model prove that P is not equal to NP. Then I’ll be impressed.
So you'll only be impressed if it's superintelligent and solves a problem no human has? That's a ridiculously high bar.
Humans have been shown to solve problems and discover things that "no human has" up to that point. So I wouldn't even call it "superintelligent". But it would definitely be truly useful at that point!
The marketing speak of some companies goes into effectively fantastical territory. Some claims that are made effectively imply P = NP, which is like bad TV-series-level science fiction, but some people fall for it.