What's up with the upvote/comments ratio 8 to 337 on this post? Are the comments already also ai advanced? (/s?)
Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
361–370 of 1001 posts
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#362Not 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?
They've been hiring mathematicians to verify this stuff themselves. They're obviously not just throwing it out there without any human review.
And these mathematicians sink the comment to the bottom in 5 min?
It is not peer review if it is all in one company that wants an IPO.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#363Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite hah, sorry, we are plebs out here.
Jokes on him. I'm a peasant and I've been here for years
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#364Original submission (460 votes) two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132058
For some reason comments got moved to this one.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#365problem number 1 and 9 are surprisingly very intuitive
check here : 1. high dimensional sphere packing https://muchmirul.github.io/conjectures/sphere-packing/
2. multicolor ramsey number https://muchmirul.github.io/conjectures/multicolor-ramsey
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#366Earlier quoted context omitted.
This makes no sense. To believe this you have to think that the models are somehow being overfit explicitly on academic mathematics and it doesn’t carry over at all to more practical software engineering. I wouldn’t make that bet.
Unlike math, software is constrained by the physical world.
In what sense?
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#367Original submission (460 votes) two days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49132058 For some reason comments got moved to this one.
Its visibility was diminished due to the flamewar detector and most of its front page time being during overnight hours on Friday night/Saturday morning USA time. I've created a new copy to give it some primetime exposure, because it seems like an important enough announcement to warrant it.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#368This thread has an absolutely wild points to comments ratio.
tomhow explains they gave the story another shot here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49158443
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#369Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
What you are doing is "motte and bailey". The motte is "AI useful". The bailey is "Singularity is nigh".
>> The motte is "AI useful". The bailey is "Singularity is nigh".
But there are people like Ed Zitron, frequently posted and cited here, who disagree even with the former.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#370Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
What you are doing is "motte and bailey". The motte is "AI useful". The bailey is "Singularity is nigh".
The unified position which many folks deny is "AI is powerful" or, alternatively, "AI will be powerful soon".
(I'm personally still skeptical about this, but I'm being pulled towards accepting it).
"AI is useful" is too low of a bar, and "singularity is nigh" is too high. "AI is on its way to upending society" is about in the middle, and still vastly contentious among laypeople.