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

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#341

Post by uh_uh »

dgacmu wrote: post #328
halJordan wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's totally disjointed from anything in this thread. The main accusation is that openai is cherrypicking math problems and we should be against these results. As if a mathematical proof stops being provably correct because it was cherry picked And frankly these "concerns" ignore reality. In any research phd course you're actively told to bite off something small and likely to be provable so that you can prove it (…

It's disjointed? The post that started this sub-thread asked: > 1. How many total problems were given to the model, and what percent were left unsolved at what cost before giving up? 2. How many attempts did you give the model at solving these problems? 3. How expensive was the harness, e.g. did the model have access to a job cluster? I think it's an extremely relevant question to ask, because it helps us better unde…

It just feels silly to haggle about the price here. It doesn't even matter because it's going to drop by an OOM quickly.

If these 10 problems were solved by humans, it would be pretty impressive, even if it took a large number of researchers! Yet when AI does it, HN commenters suddenly feel the urge to play accountant.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#342

Post by petilon »

tim333 wrote: post #340
petilon wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can give you detailed instructions for making a coffee. Is that not enough? Actually making coffee requires more than intelligence, it requires eyes and limbs (i.e., robotics). Think about a human that is blind and does not have limbs. Does he not have natural general intelligence, even though he is not able to make a cup of coffee?

The Wozniak test has it with a robot body going into a house, finding a coffee maker and making a cup. I guess you can vary the rules as you like.

That's a good test for a robot, not for AGI. AGI should test only intelligence and should not require limbs.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#343

Post by antonvs »

petilon wrote: post #257
antonvs wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s artificial, it’s general, and it’s intelligence. The people who believe “AGI” is an important and unattained goal need to start coining and defining their terms better.

A true AGI will continuously improve itself without periodic retraining from scratch. Just like humans.

That’s just an assertion. Why is that the “true” definition?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#344

Post by somenameforme »

throwaway0123_5 wrote: post #332
somenameforme wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't help but wonder about the human motivation there though. For instance as it became increasingly clear that LLMs were capable (and becoming ever more capable) of competently solving meaningfully complex software development tasks, suddenly then there came to be a lot of talk of 'prompt engineering' as a skill. The chronology doesn't make a ton of sense unless you consider that the main motivation may have been…

> suddenly then there came to be a lot of talk of 'prompt engineering' as a skill. I would've thought pretty much the exact opposite. "Prompt engineering" was somewhat important in 2023/2024 when the models were much weaker, it doesn't seem at all necessary anymore (unless just "clearly stating your requirements" counts as prompt engineering). Most of the discussion I've seen seems consistent with this?

The reason it's a meme right now is because there were a lot of people taking it seriously even when it was completely obvious nonsense. And one can argue it always was. There was some good advice that was mostly self evident, like having the most relevant instructions near the end of your context, but there was never a time when a 'prompt engineer' would produce dramatically better output than a random guy just clearly stating what he wants.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#345

Post by slashdave »

christofosho wrote: post #338
slashdave wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? We already know how to solve all of these issues. What we lack is collective political will.

There is boundless technology we have not yet discovered. I think that we understand we have problems. I don't believe we actually know how to solve them all. And yeah, the lack of collective political will sucks. It would be naïve, however, to think that there is no value in ensuring longevity in our current and future infrastructure. And improving it to sustain the population giving these companies their value is a…

This SV mentality that technology can solve all problems is rather tiring, really.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#346

Post by AlexeyBelov »

eadwu wrote: post #221
unknownian wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be getting downvoted for something that a majority of pure math and art enthusiasts believe to be true. The truth is many of these entrepreneurs and VCs are obsessed with AI not for money or human progress, but because it makes them feel closer to being a "god" rather than a mere mortal. Much of it (especially AI art) is out of spite for human creativity, which is done by mortals with limitations.

Taking the stance of moral superiority is kind of funny. And pure math and art enthusiasts don't think they are closer to being a "god" from understanding/"discovering" math? Stop coping and deluding yourself mate. To begin with, whether AI is the one doing the discovering or not makes no difference. Any "pure math" person would aim to understand regardless - and would be quite glad that they have a longer paved path…

> Stop coping

Isn't coping a good and useful mechanism?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#347

Post by zild3d »

curt15 wrote: post #111
robinhouston wrote: post #87

In a way the most remarkable thing about this is that it isn't even at the top of the HN homepage. Even if this is a step up from what we've seen before, we're no longer astonished by the idea that AI can make significant advances in mathematics and computer science.

What about AI research itself? Is OpenAI close to automating its human staff out of a job?

> What about AI research itself? Is OpenAI close to automating its human staff out of a job?

It's more like they've already automated the parts of the jobs that the humans most closely thought of as the "their job"

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#348

Post by dash2 »

MinimalAction wrote: post #311
dash2 wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this whole way of looking at things weird. Did maths exist just to entertain and employ mathematicians? Surely maths is, like, useful? Not immediately, not predictably, but in the long run? In which case, whether mathematicians feel bad about it is mostly irrelevant - it's like complaining about the railway because it may put coaching inns out of business.

Absolutely not the same! People need jobs to bring in income. I don't believe those who profit off of this will share it with the world. The power is all concentrated in the few hands that decide whether or not the rest get any semblance of income in the long run. I don't believe UBS until it happens.

It sounds like you think no technological advances will make the world richer in the long run. I politely suggest that the past century of economic growth shows problems with this argument. I also think that, while jobs are important for prosperity, the jobs of mathematicians are a minuscule fraction of a percent of the total.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#349

Post by pfdietz »

c7b wrote: post #211
aabhay wrote: post #6

My main gripe here is the lack of transparency around the total experiment and construction. I doubt that they simply pointed their model at these ten specific problems alone and gave the model one shot; therefore the $2000 number could be completely misleading, similar to P-value hacking by not disclosing the total experimental setup. I want to know: 1. How many total problems were given to the model, and what perce…

I believe we're seeing a new kind of mathematics that will require completely new formats for publication, a bit similar to those used in experimental sciences. AI-powered mathematics should be fully reproducible, so it's the authors' responsibility to disclose the exact model type, inference settings/seeds and the full prompt history leading to the result. Of course that would ideally require open weights models. It…

While you may want AI results to somehow "not count" if the methods weren't disclosed, that doesn't present these results from poisoning the well for others. Once a result (with verifiable proof object) is delivered, the problem is solved, regardless of whether methods were disclosed.

Methods are only really necessary for results at a meta level, about the design amd evaluation of AI math systems.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#350

Post by Alifatisk »

fooker wrote: post #327
Alifatisk wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Care to elaborate? Curious about this. Is this because LLMs have been geared towards understanding user user intent behind a prompt rather than following the instructions exactly?

There's a full fledged 'reasoning' step that basically expands your prompt. As long as you are not missing important information, how you word the prompt does not have any effect.

Oh yeah, I suspected it was something like this. Thanks!
Post reply on HN