Really? He was steering the wheel the whole time. GPT didn't do the math.
Ah, the good old Clever Hans. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clever_Hans
Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
271–280 of 744 posts
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
>it really is a new and exciting world... The point is that from now on, there will be nothing really new, nothing really original, nothing really exciting. Just endless stream of re-hashed old stuff that is just okayish.. Like an AI spotify playlist, it will keep you in chains (aka engaged) without actually making you like really happy or good. It would be like living in a virtual world, but without having anything…
AI can both explore new things and exploit existing things. Nothing forces it to only rehash old stuff. >without actually making you like really happy or good. What are you basing this off of. I've shared several AI songs with people in real life due to how much I've enjoyed them. I doing see why an AI playlist couldn't be good or make people happy. It just needs to find what you like in music. Again coming back to e…
>What are you basing this off of.
Jokes. LLMs are not able to make me laugh all day by generating infinite stream of hilarious original jokes..
Does it work for you?
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#273It's deeply surprising to me that LLMs have had more success proving higher math theorems than making successful consumer software
They haven't, not at all as far as I can tell. This math problem appears to be a nice chore to be solved, the equivalent to "Claude, optimize this code" or "Write a parser", which is being done 100000x a day.
The original researchers who proposed this problem tried and failed multiple times to solve it. Does that sound like a 'nice chore to be solved' to you ?
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is a correct explanation of how things work these days. RL has really changed things.
Models based on RL are still just remixers as defined above, but their distribution can cover things that are unknown to humans due to being present in the synthetic training data, but not present in the corpus of human awareness. AlphaGo's move 37 is an example. It appears creative and new to outside observers, and it is creative and new, but it's not because the model is figuring out something new on the spot, it's…
No. AlphaGo does search, and does so imperfectly. It does come up with creative new patterns not seen before.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#275I have long said I am an AI doubter until AI could print out the answers to hard problems or ones requiring tons of innovation. Assuming this is verified to be correct (not by AI) then I just became a believer. I would like to see a few more AI inventions to know for sure, but wow, it really is a new and exciting world. I really hope we use this intelligence resource to make the world better.
> I really hope we use this intelligence resource to make the world better.
I wished I had your optimism. I'm not an AI doubter (I can see it works all by myself so I don't think I need such verification). But I do doubt humanity's ability to use these tools for good. The potential for power and wealth concentration is off the scale compared to most of our other inventions so far.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
That question is equivalent to asking a human to add the wavelengths of those two colors and divide it by 3.
Unfair - human beats AI in this comparison, as human will instantly answer "I don't know" instead of yelling a random number. Or at best "I don't know, but maybe I can find out" and proceed to finding out/ But he is unlikely to shout "6" because he heard this number once when someone talked about light.
> human will instantly answer "I don't know" instead of yelling a random number.
Seems that you never worked with Accenture consultants?
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
Math and coding competition problems are easier to train because of strict rules and cheap verification. But once you go beyond that to less defined things such as code quality, where even humans have hard time putting down concrete axioms, they start to hallucinate more and become less useful. We are missing the value function that allowed AlphaGo to go from mid range player trained on human moves to superhuman by p…
> I don't see this getting better. We went from 2 + 7 = 11 to "solved a frontier math problem" in 3 years, yet people don't think this will improve?
The problem class is rather very structured which makes it "easier", yet the results are undeniably impressive
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#278I have long said I am an AI doubter until AI could print out the answers to hard problems or ones requiring tons of innovation. Assuming this is verified to be correct (not by AI) then I just became a believer. I would like to see a few more AI inventions to know for sure, but wow, it really is a new and exciting world. I really hope we use this intelligence resource to make the world better.
AI is a remixer; it remixes all known ideas together. It won't come up with new ideas though; the LLMs just predict the most likely next token based on the context. That means the group of characters it outputs must have been quite common in the past. It won't add a new group of characters it has never seen before on its own.
We need a website with refutations that one can easily link to. This interpretations of LLMs is outdated and unproductive.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#279Do they also publish the raw output of the model, i.e. not only the final response but also everything generated for internal reasoning or tool use?
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
They haven't, not at all as far as I can tell. This math problem appears to be a nice chore to be solved, the equivalent to "Claude, optimize this code" or "Write a parser", which is being done 100000x a day.
The original researchers who proposed this problem tried and failed multiple times to solve it. Does that sound like a 'nice chore to be solved' to you ?
That's interesting context, where do you see that? I'm going off of the label "Moderately interesting".
edit: I see in the full write up that the contributor says that they'd estimate an expert would take 1-3 months to do this. They also note that they came up with this solution independently but hadn't confirmed it.