391–400 of 607 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your reply was so rude it convinced me to edit. Your second reply is a distortion of my original message too.
Well I'm glad it had the desired effect. Your comment was ruder.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Paid plans give you access to much larger, more intelligent models which have thinking enabled (inference time compute). In the example here you can see GPT Pro taking 20-80 minutes to respond with the proof. All this is far more expensive to serve so it’s locked away behind paid plans.
> thinking enabled (inference time compute) What do you mean by compute?
You too can solve maths problems by: 1. Generating enormous amounts of text 2. Persuading a mathematician to look closely at it 3. Announcing success if they conclude it is a proof This is deeply disappointing relative to "chatgpt found a proof that isabelle verifies" or similar, especially the part where a mathematician spends (presumably hours) reading through the llm output.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the AI says things like “Interesting!” My experience of those utterance is that it’s purely phatic mimicry: they lack genuine intuitive surprise, it’s just marking a very odd shift in direction. The problem isn’t the lack of path, is that the rhetorical follow-up to those leaps are usually relevant results, so they stream-of-token ends up rapidly over-playing its own conviction. That’s why it’s necessary (and often…
It’s funny that this is probably due to bias in the training texts, right? Humans are way more likely to publish their “Eureka!” moments than their screwups… if they did, maybe models would’ve exhibit this behavior. Now that AI labs have all these “Nevermind” texts to train on, maybe it’s getting easier to correct? (Would require some postprocessing to classify the AI outputs as successful or not before training)
Here is the chat: don't search the internet. This is a test to see how well you can craft non-trivial, novel and creative proofs given a "number theory and primitive sets" math problem. Provide a full unconditional proof or disproof of the problem. {{problem}} REMEMBER - this unconditional argument may require non-trivial, creative and novel elements. Then "Thought for 80m 17s" https://chatgpt.com/share/69dd1c83-b164…
>>how well you ..[can].. craft non-trivial, novel and creative proofs From A World Appears (Michael Pollan's latest book) https://www.amazon.com/World-Appears-Journey-into-Consciousn... > : "Creative solutions to novel problems depend on consciousness " [p77] ... "consciousness creates a space for decision-making" ... "integrated information is consciousness, full stop. The two are identical" [xxiii]. "Any physical s…
Here is the chat: don't search the internet. This is a test to see how well you can craft non-trivial, novel and creative proofs given a "number theory and primitive sets" math problem. Provide a full unconditional proof or disproof of the problem. {{problem}} REMEMBER - this unconditional argument may require non-trivial, creative and novel elements. Then "Thought for 80m 17s" https://chatgpt.com/share/69dd1c83-b164…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is saying something completely different from the comment that you're responding to, though.
No, not really. That comment implies that the LLM is "faking" thinking. But who actually knows how thinking even works in human brains? And assuming that LLMs work by a different mechanism, that this different mechanism can't actually also be considered "thinking"? Human brains are realized in the same physics other things are so even if quantum level shenanigans are involved, it will ultimately reduce down to physic…
It is not at all the same as what Nietzsche is saying in that passage. He's critiquing Kant and Descartes on philosophical grounds that have very little to do the definition of intelligence, or any possible relevance to whether or not LLMs are intelligent or "can think", which I think is a very pointless and uninteresting question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Most people would consider someone who can calculate 56863*2446 instantly in their head to be intelligent. Does that mean pocket calculators are intelligent? The result is the same. If you wanted to insist a calculator wasn't intelligent and satisfy my conditions then you can. At the very least you can test for the sort of intelligence that is present in humans but absent from calculators and cleanly separate the tw…
> At the very least you can test for the sort of intelligence that is present in humans but absent from calculators and cleanly separate the two. But you can only do that now, in hindsight . Before calculators, one could argue being able to do math was a sign of intelligence, but once something new comes along which can do math in a non-intelligent way, you can realise “ah, right, my definition was incomplete/incorre…
No you could always do that. The meaning you take from it is up to you but you could always separate humans and calculators.
>No, that is not right. Fool’s gold is a thing.
I know what fools gold is. I used it for contrast. Fools gold can be tested for.
>but that doesn’t mean you know how to do it.
It doesn't matter. If you claim it exists but you don't know how to do it and you can't point to anyone who can, it's the same as something you made up.
>It’s like tasting two similar beers or sodas. You may be able to identify them by taste and understand they’re difference but be unable to articulate exactly how you know which is which to the point someone else can use your verbal instructions to know the difference.
You are still making the same mistake. Two similar beers or sodas taste different. No one is asking you to come up with a theory for intelligence. All you have to say here is the equivalent of "It tastes different" and let me taste it for myself. But even that much, you can not do. So why on earth should I treat what you say as worth anything ?
Buried pretty deep in the article > “The raw output of ChatGPT’s proof was actually quite poor. So it required an expert to kind of sift through and actually understand what it was trying to say,” Lichtman says. But now he and Tao have shortened the proof so that it better distills the LLM’s key insight. I guess “ChatGPT came up with a novel approach to a problem that later turned out not to be totally stupid and ter…
I wouldn't expect a hand-crafted proof by an amateur to be much different.
LLM produced texts are often in a weird area where the quality of the content and the quality of the writing have very little to do with one another.