Earlier quoted context omitted.
And what does taking it seriously entail?
[flagged]
No.
Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
391–400 of 1001 posts
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#392Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Your 'serious' proposal is unlimited global military bombing campaign on civilian infrastructure by the United States (which is currently losing a war using the same strategy) to 'solve safety' preemptively against a 20% number you just made up? 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.
GP said cooperation, never implied the US would do it alone.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#393Earlier 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…
“AGI will only, truly, be achieved when the machine can destroy an industrial-type toilet after downing a Supreme Burrito and a large Baja Blast.” -Alan Turing (allegedly)
[deleted]
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#394one of the early premises of how ai takeoff would go was that a system that could solve open problems in advanced mathematics would also discover novel advances in math and computer science that directly unlock drastically better software performance. we are seeing frontier level math breakthroughs (ie performance that would put it in the top 100 or 1000 mathematicians in the world if it were a human, meaning top .00…
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.
Or, that the mathematical formalisms that model the limits of software performance are firm enough that barring P==NP, nothing much will change despite proofs of beautiful math.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#395Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#396Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
So you defined your own idiosyncratic version of "moving the goalposts" and used it to rebut his argument, with a condescending "you understand that's how science works, right?"--instead of being honest that it is you who are changing the definition, and not his failure to understand anything. I don't see how that's any better.
He rebutted the argument about moving the goalposts by moving the goalposts. It’s better by dint of sheer bravado.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#397Replace philosophers for mathematicians and Douglas Adams was spot on again. Whilst current models can't 'intuit' and come up with conjectures, they can certainly disprove some of them very quickly through the kind of grind that humans can't do. I suppose there really are some mathematicians out there today, whose last few years of study, have just been up-ended by this. -- "Yes we are," insisted Majikthise. "We are…
> Whilst current models can't 'intuit' and come up with conjectures
I disagree. I routinely let LLMs speculate or generate hypotheses along the way of helping with technical research. Sometimes they can prove the correctness of a concrete math idea but other times even an unproven conjecture helps with the numerical algorithm implementation and the result is then simply supported by additional data. I guess that any autoresearch-adjacent application has LLMs intuiting and coming up with hypotheses/conjectures—as do the steps/lemmas along a complex proof. In my opinion the modern LLMs are powerful intuitive thinkers that generate lots of conjectures of varying quality or importance.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#398Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> "probably only 20% chance we all die" Bad news for you -- there's a 100% chance we all die. Sorry to be the one to tell you.
Logical mistake. There is a difference between every human dying eventually and humanity going extinct. The former doesn't imply the latter. The previous commenter clearly meant the latter.
Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#399Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science
#400Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Your 'serious' proposal is unlimited global military bombing campaign on civilian infrastructure by the United States (which is currently losing a war using the same strategy) to 'solve safety' preemptively against a 20% number you just made up? 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.
If the thesis that "If anybody builds it, everyone dies" is true, or has any chance of becoming true, then it is the logical thing to do. As Geoffrey Hinton said, "If you want to know what it's like not to be the apex intelligence, ask a chicken."