351–360 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is exactly what is meant by “moving the goalposts”. And it’s a fairly well known expression applying wherever people retroactively change their requirements in reaction to those requirements having been met.
It's almost like I disagree with your use of the phrase in this context, rather than that I don't know the meaning of it.
I don't see how that's any better.
After skimming some of the writeups, I'm surprised that the frontier internal model still writes just as poorly as Sol. Maybe good AI paper writing is further away than I thought...
I'd honestly rather they just automate every job at that point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never understood all this talk about moving goalposts - you understand that's how science works, right? We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. If we never "moved the goalposts", we'd be stuck scoring the same goals over and over.
> We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. That's not what people mean when they say "moving the goalposts". It means that people are adamant that something wasn't important/hard/impressive once the "AI" solves it. And then they come up with another thing that needs to be solved in order to prove it is important/hard/impressive. And once that happens, they do it again. And ag…
The motte is "AI useful". The bailey is "Singularity is nigh".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Never understood all this talk about moving goalposts - you understand that's how science works, right? We improve, we learn, we recalibrate our expectations based on what we've learned. If we never "moved the goalposts", we'd be stuck scoring the same goals over and over.
They aren't claiming that science doesn't progress by moving goal posts. They're talking about how critics of AI have claimed it isn't revolutionary/useful, then progressively changed what would it mean for AI to be actually revolutionary/useful. Not long ago many folks were saying AI was the same as the crypto bubble. No real useful technology and only hype.
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.
This is not at the top as it is actively flagged by people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI. Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite.
Who is going to wade through this?
Pretty cool. The impact of AI is getting undeniable, there aren’t many positions left to move the goalposts to at this stage, next they’ll have to be outside the stadium entirely. The sooner people can be broken out of their denial about all this the better, and we can start actually taking it seriously.
not sure how many will get this reference but "AI" for science and math is like super-shoes for runners
at first we are blown away by the impossible improvements including sub-2-hour realworld marathon and every other PR/CR/WR is dialed down
but then the improvements slow and reach a stall point because of the limit of technology and the source of the achievement
ie. sub-2-hour marathon yes, sub-1-hour never happening (rollerblade inline-skate record is 1-hour marathon)
Not peer reviewed, Lean proofs are 100,000 lines long and Lean has bugs: https://cr.yp.to/proofs.html Who is going to wade through this?