Live data from Hacker News

Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

chatgpt.com

301–310 of 681 posts

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#301

Math has some of the most insanely dense and impenetrable nomenclature. I can generally keep my head mostly above water or at least near the surface reading from most STEM fields, perhaps leaning on google/wikipedia a bit, but man, mathematics just so quickly decouples from all common tractable understanding it's insane. Sorry it's a bit of an aside, but I imagine many other otherwise "technical" folks feel the same…

This is also true for almost every other field, even within computer science. The only difference is that a lot of people operate at a very surface level without realizing just how much background knowledge they have accumulated. Think about the number of keywords your average SWE is expected to know. It is rather insane. Cache, stack, heap, process, thread, socket, file, tcp, http, tls, websocks, socks, soc2???, dea…

>> Cache, stack, heap, process, thread, socket, file, tcp, http, tls, websocks, socks, soc2???, deadlock, stack, queue, race, atomic, event loop, coroutine, async, database, transaction, index, replication, sharding, consistency, serialization, DNS, load balancer, container, namespace, and so on.

... communication protocol, method signatures, web components, ssh, CSS media queries, HTTP headers, WebSockets, timeouts, ETag, iterables, async iterables, middleware, CI/CD, build, consistent hashing, signatures, JWT, SSO, OAuth, SAML, XML, YAML, JSON, block cipher, ETL pipeline, SQL, SQL transactions (atomic), relational databases, foreign keys, schema normalization, referential integrity, 1-to-1, 1-to-n, n-to-n, document databases, compound indexes, idempotency, offset-based pagination, cursor-based pagination, P2P, Kademlia, structured vs unstructured network topology, message routing, frontend router, message storm, reconnect storm, locality, encapsulation, cohesion, coupling, design patterns, modularity, Big O notation, raytracing, shaders, VPN, VPC, data schema, schema validation, CORS, preflight-requests, CSRF, ASCII, UFT8, CSP, CPU context-switching, BIOS, bootloader, interrupt controller, ports, BIND protocol, BGP protocol, assembly language, big endian, little endian, register, signals, embarrassingly parallel, serial processing, event loop, binary trees, tree rebalancing, graph traversal algorithms, sorting algorithms, string character escaping and encoding, blob, base64, UUID, timestamp, CLI, Bash, unit tests, integration tests, e2e tests, TDD, stateful, stateless, proxy, nginx, haproxy, config, helm file, k8s, staging, git, push, commit, merge, rebase, cherry-pick, pub/sub, diff, honeypot, buffer overflow, pointer, file descriptor, authentication, certificates, TLS certificates, DNS Zone files, A record, CNAME, TXT record, SMTP, POP3, SOCKS5, Sha256, HMAC, Merkle trees, Merkle Signature Trees, Lamport OTS, Winternitz OTS, SPHINCS, lattice-based cryptography, pg-vector, vector embeddings, API, rate limiting, cookies, sameSite, httpOnly, localStorage, XSS attack, SQL injection, fetch API, module preloading, bundling...

Barely scratching the surface. I think I could probably keep typing all the technical terms I know for at least 24 hours straight. For most of the topics above, I could probably give a 1 or 2 hour lecture on each one from memory. Some I could give a day-long lecture each.

To explain all the terms I know to a basic degree, I would probably need to give a whole year of lectures back-to-back from 9am to 5pm. And I'm just a rank-and-file senior engineer with 15 years of experience.

It's also why the vast majority of software systems are insecure. The average senior software engineer doesn't know everything that they need to know to build secure software. Last time I poked around Coinbase APIs on HackerOne, I found a DoS vulnerability in less than 30 minutes. That's Coinbase, not some startup built by a bunch of recent graduates.

AI cannot avoid vulnerabilities either since it is trained on average engineer code. There's not enough high quality code available on the entire internet to train AI to implement secure code IMO. As impressive as Mythos may be, it's not enough. I don't even think formal verification would provide protection since sometimes issues with the spec itself can provide an opening for a vulnerability.

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#302
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"tcp" can take roughly 3-4 weeks of heads-down dedicated study to have some reasonable familiarity with. Same is true with most of the other concepts. Being able to speak with expertise on that list of topics is 3-4 years of really focused study and work. I think what happens is that people often have passing familiarity with a word or topic and presume knowledge, and years (decades) later they realize they knew almo…

You could get a surface level understanding of TCP, or 99% of topic areas in computing, in less than 4 weeks of study. You could not get a surface level understanding of literally any of the maths in the link in less than 4 weeks of study. The vast majority of what computers do just isn't that complex. I'm not saying it isn't "complex" just that any reasonably smart person can understand how a computer works and stil…

Speaking as someone who has run courses designed to take late teens / early 20somethings with a variety of backgrounds and tried to teach them 1st semester programming concepts in two weeks, I think anyone who thinks tcp/ip an easy four week dunk for most doesn’t remember how much they’ve already learned and take for granted.

Sure, if you’ve already learned enough groundwork, tcp/ip is accessible in weeks. The same is true of most of the algebraic concepts in play here. And both have rabbit holes you can also spend a much longer time going down (though here I am willing to give the edge to math which offers much greater opportunities for hypergeneralization and new vistas of abstraction along which not only specific rabbit holes but entire new generalizations of both rabbits and holes may be found).

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The Rees algebra is an algebra over Z[t^−1]" Such a small sentence and yet it means very little to me. I understand some constituent pieces, but I don't understand what Z is here other than a 'ring' and I don't really grasp how t^-1 converts this into a generalized family of algebra. It would take me a lot of effort to understand this and use it practically. I find that fascinating because it really is such a small…

Z is the ring of integers, t is a formal variable allowing us to discuss polynomials whose coefficients are in some ring. That’s what R[t] means: the ring of polynomials of the formal variable t with coefficients in R. Adding in t^-1 lets us include inverted terms like 2t^-3. An algebra over a ring (call it S so we don’t confuse it with R from the previous paragraph) is a like a vector space over S, with the added st…

But... what is a ring? What is a formal variable? What is a vector space? What does "algebra over the ring" mean?

His point is the terms are dense too

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#304

Jeez. While I obviously can't talk at all about the math, I've noticed a few things: a) The model thinks on some questions while straight answers on others. (I wish I'd knew from the questions if this is somehow correlated to hard tasks or "inventive" tasks, but that's way out of my league). b) The model sometimes pushes back. Again, I'd wish I knew if it was warranted, but I counted 2 instances where it said "yes, b…

The "yes, with caveats" thing is boilerplate for both Codex and Claude since this current generation. It's actually a bit annoying because it primes you to think that the caveats are real, but most of the time it's just something terribly obvious and not a real caveat, but the model probably has some system prompt that tells it to always consider caveats or something like that. Same as the model starting every reply…

A lot of things are not black and white and it’s nuanced so someone with higher intelligence will point it out. It’s an emergent behavior not a defect

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is also true for almost every other field, even within computer science. The only difference is that a lot of people operate at a very surface level without realizing just how much background knowledge they have accumulated. Think about the number of keywords your average SWE is expected to know. It is rather insane. Cache, stack, heap, process, thread, socket, file, tcp, http, tls, websocks, socks, soc2???, dea…

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transmission_Control_Protocol compare to > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rees_algebra Most people, especially non-tech technical people, could crash through the TCP article and come out the other side with at least a high level understanding of it. Most people, even technical ones, could not even get through the first line of the rees article, heck the first statement of the article. A…

Definitely agreed. I have a bachelor's in math and took an abstract algebra course as part of it. I also took a couple computer science courses in college and work as a data engineer. My only real exposure to networking is from an AWS cert I did years ago.

I can tease apart the Rees Algebra article one bit of half remembered terminology at a time and come out of it feeling like I just barely understand what the topic even is.

I can read the TCP article and feel like I have a thorough overview of the topic and could explain it at a high level to someone else.

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> There is about 150 years of cognitive science experimentation in animals Yeah that would be relevant if AI were an animal... As I said, it's clearly intelligent, but a quite different intelligence to that shared by animals.

I haven't even been convinced it's fundamentally different from biological intelligence. But it's clearly still missing a few ingredients. But we are really close.

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#309
post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, the problem with mathematics is that it is basically its own language separate from your native tongue. You have to learn dozens of symbols and greek letters and such and memorize what their meaning is in the context of mathematics in order to "follow" a mathematical conversation. Mathematics would be much more approachable if it just used plain English like `sum(0, Infinity, my_func)` instead of a big Greek sigm…

Mathematics would be much more approachable if it just used plain English like `sum(0, Infinity, my_func)` instead of a big Greek sigma with nested function nomenclature First of all, no, mathematics would be far less approachable if it did that. Most of the Greek letters used in mathematics don't have a universal meaning, they're context-specific and defined by convention or just prior to use. Second of all, mathema…

To second this, most (non-applied) mathematicians work first with paper and pencil or on a chalkboard, and the act of writing out the symbols is a part of thinking about them. Typing doesn't wire into the brain in the same way. Think of how you learned algebra in school. You wrote out much of what you were thinking, often in ways that would be hard to flexibly format on a computer, and the act of writing your thoughts solidified them in your memory.

Mathematicians pretty much universally view typesetting as a distinct step from the thinking part of math, and something you do at the end once you have figured everything out.

Re: Terence Tao's ChatGPT conversation about the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample

#310

Jeez. While I obviously can't talk at all about the math, I've noticed a few things: a) The model thinks on some questions while straight answers on others. (I wish I'd knew from the questions if this is somehow correlated to hard tasks or "inventive" tasks, but that's way out of my league). b) The model sometimes pushes back. Again, I'd wish I knew if it was warranted, but I counted 2 instances where it said "yes, b…

The "yes, with caveats" thing is boilerplate for both Codex and Claude since this current generation. It's actually a bit annoying because it primes you to think that the caveats are real, but most of the time it's just something terribly obvious and not a real caveat, but the model probably has some system prompt that tells it to always consider caveats or something like that. Same as the model starting every reply…

At least Opus up to 4.7 or so, my experience is that Claude often uses "yes, with caveats" in place of "no, you numbskull".

"Is a meter the same as a foot?"

"Yes, exactly, you have it now, except they're different distances."

Maybe it's because I ask it to quiz me, and it really doesn't like to tell me I'm wrong. I also got a fair amount of

Claude: Ok, I will test your understanding. Question A? Question B? Question C? Question D?

Me: A=10. B=2. C=121. D is not solvable.

Claude: You got most of them right! You're very astute in saying that A=10, but actually it's 7. B=2 is exactly right! C could be 121 if we were talking base 4, but we're actually in base 10 so it's 25. D is trivially solvable and is 0.

Me: ...isn't that like 1 out of 4? How is that "most of them right"?

Claude: You're absolutely right! ...blah blah blah

Post reply on HN