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.
"AI" has limits in that it cannot invent knowledge, it can only distill and search for patterns in existing knowledge 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 becau…
Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
381–390 of 1001 posts
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#382Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#383Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#384Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#385Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
#386Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what does taking it seriously entail?
[flagged]
And you accuse the 'other side' of 'suicidal apathy'??
You should put down the AI and do some self-reflection on how you came to hold these views.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#387Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#388Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#389My 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…
shouldnt the paper be the math of the argument? the reproduction is reading the following the proof