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

GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 430 posts

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#311

Post by D-Machine »

_giorgio_ wrote: post #230
square_usual wrote: post #64

It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs. Like with the novel solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for erdos problems - many users here (even in this very thread!) think they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, LLMs hav…

Always moving targets. They never surrender.

"They're moving the goalposts" is increasingly the autistic shrieking of someone with no serious argument or connection to reality whatsoever.

No one cares about how "AGI" or whatever the fuck term or internet-argument goalpost you cared about X months ago was. Everyone cares about what current tech can do NOW, and under what conditions, and when it fails catastrophically. That is all that matters.

So, refining the conditions of an LLM win (or loss) is all that matters (not who wins or loses depending on some particular / historical refinement). Complaining that some people see some recent result as a loss (or win) is just completely failing to understand the actual game being played / what really matters here.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#312

Post by lupsasca »

buttered_toast wrote: post #239
etraql wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also work at OpenAI? A comment pointing that out was flagged by the LLM marketers.

I think it says in the paper that he does, but it's also public knowledge. https://www.linkedin.com/in/alex-lupsasca-9096a214/

Correct, on both counts!

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#313

Post by D-Machine »

famouswaffles wrote: post #310
D-Machine wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent. Like with the recent solutions GPT 5.2 has been able to find for Erdos problems, even though in almost all cases such solutions rely on poorly-known past publications, or significant expert user guidance and essential tools like…

>It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent. Really? Is that happening in this thread because I can barely see it. Instead you have a bunch of asinine comments butthurt about acknowledging a GPT contribution that would have been acknowledged any day had a human done it. >th…

> Your framing is weirdly disingenuous

I am not surprised that you can't understand that the quote I am making is obviously parodying the OP as disingenuous. Given our previous interactions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46938446), it is clear you don't understand much things about AI and/or LLMs, or, perhaps, basic communication, at all.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#314

Post by famouswaffles »

D-Machine wrote: post #313
famouswaffles wrote: post #310

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent. Really? Is that happening in this thread because I can barely see it. Instead you have a bunch of asinine comments butthurt about acknowledging a GPT contribution that would have been acknowledged any day had a human done it. >th…

> Your framing is weirdly disingenuous I am not surprised that you can't understand that the quote I am making is obviously parodying the OP as disingenuous. Given our previous interactions ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46938446 ), it is clear you don't understand much things about AI and/or LLMs, or, perhaps, basic communication, at all.

OP's original comment is something that is actually happening in a bunch of comments on this very thread, and yours...not even remotely. You certainly tried to paint it as disingenuous but it really just fell flat. I'm not surprised you failed to understand that though.

>Given our previous interactions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46938446), it is clear you don't understand much things about AI and/or LLMs at all.

Sure, Whatever makes you happy I guess.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#315

Post by D-Machine »

brokencode wrote: post #303
anon84873628 wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "pointy haired" mean? (Presumably not literally?)

Crazy that an honest question like this gets downvoted. I honestly think the downvote button is pretty trash for online communities. It kills diversity of thought and discussion and leaves you with an echo chamber. If you disagree with or dislike something, leave a response. Express your view. Save the downvotes for racism, calls for violence, etc.

Downvotes eventually turn all online communities into echo chambers, definitely. It is only a matter of time for HN, and you can see it accelerating in the past 1-2 years (though mostly on AI stuff, and mostly in downvote behaviour - it still remains surprisingly resilient overall).

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#316

Post by [deleted] »

bluecalm wrote: post #131
stouset wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When chess engines were first developed, they were strictly worse than the best humans. After many years of development, they became helpful to even the best humans even though they were still beatable (1985–1997). Eventually they caught up and surpassed humans but the combination of human and computer was better than either alone (~1997–2007). Since then, humans have been more or less obsoleted in the game of chess.…

The evolution was also interesting: first the engines were amazing tactically but pretty bad strategically so humans could guide them. With new NN based engines they were amazing strategically but they sucked tactically (first versions of Leela Chess Zero). Today they closed the gap and are amazing at both strategy and tactics and there is nothing humans can contribute anymore - all that is left is to just watch and…

[deleted]

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#317

Post by D-Machine »

famouswaffles wrote: post #314
D-Machine wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Your framing is weirdly disingenuous I am not surprised that you can't understand that the quote I am making is obviously parodying the OP as disingenuous. Given our previous interactions ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46938446 ), it is clear you don't understand much things about AI and/or LLMs, or, perhaps, basic communication, at all.

OP's original comment is something that is actually happening in a bunch of comments on this very thread, and yours...not even remotely. You certainly tried to paint it as disingenuous but it really just fell flat. I'm not surprised you failed to understand that though. >Given our previous interactions ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46938446 ), it is clear you don't understand much things about AI and/or LLMs…

> It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs.

>> OP's original comment is something that is actually happening in a bunch of comments on this very thread

OPs original comment was obviously a general claim not tied to responses to this thread. As usual, you fail to understand even the basics of what you are talking about.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#318

Post by vessenes »

davidmurdoch wrote: post #263
vessenes wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say "couldn't in 20 hours" might be more defensible. Depends on how many humans though. "couldn't in 20 GPT watt-hours" would give us like 2,000 humans or so.

If only humans scaled like that

I think for something like this they might be pretty scalable actually - give 2000 grad students the problem and coffee and I bet they’d go massively parallel and self organize into useful sizes and build some knowledge sharing.

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#319

Post by DeathArrow »

outlace wrote: post #11

The headline may make it seem like AI just discovered some new result in physics all on its own, but reading the post, humans started off trying to solve some problem, it got complex, GPT simplified it and found a solution with the simpler representation. It took 12 hours for GPT pro to do this. In my experience LLM’s can make new things when they are some linear combination of existing things but I haven’t been to g…

>LLM’s can make new things when they are some linear combination of existing things

Aren't most new things linear combinations of existing things (up to a point)?

Re: GPT-5.2 derives a new result in theoretical physics

#320

Post by D-Machine »

epolanski wrote: post #174
jdthedisciple wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> GPT 5.2 after crunching 12 hours mathematical formulas supervised and prompted by 4 experts in the field Yet, if some student or child achieved the same – under equal supervision – we would call him the next Einstein.

We would not call him at all because it would be one of the many millions that went through projects like this for their thesis as physics or math graduates. One of my best friends in his bachelor thesis had solved a difficult mathematical problem in planet orbits or something, and it was just yet another random day in academia. And she didn't solve it because she was a genius but because there's a bazillions such pr…

A lot of AI worship is midwits gazing in awe at the mediocre accomplishments of the 130+ IQ.

(Still sane to be scared for the future).

Post reply on HN