Earlier quoted context omitted.
funny things are funny the n-th time around. Or may be it was just not funny and just something new for you..
We have different senses of humor.
Just tell one funny thing an LLM said...
Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
481–490 of 744 posts
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#482Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see this getting better. We went from 2 + 7 = 11 to "solved a frontier math problem" in 3 years, yet people don't think this will improve?
I’ve seen this style of take so much that I’m dying for someone to name a logical fallacy for it, like “appeal to progress” or something. Step away from LLMs for a second and recognize that “Yesterday it was X, so today it must be X+1” is such a naive take and obviously something that humans so easily fall into a trap of believing (see: flying cars).
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#483Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see this getting better. We went from 2 + 7 = 11 to "solved a frontier math problem" in 3 years, yet people don't think this will improve?
I’ve seen this style of take so much that I’m dying for someone to name a logical fallacy for it, like “appeal to progress” or something. Step away from LLMs for a second and recognize that “Yesterday it was X, so today it must be X+1” is such a naive take and obviously something that humans so easily fall into a trap of believing (see: flying cars).
Yeah, and even if we accept that models are improving in every possible way, going from this to 'AI is exponential, singularity etc.' is just as large a leap.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#484Earlier quoted context omitted.
AI is a remixer; it remixes all known ideas together. It won't come up with new ideas though; the LLMs just predict the most likely next token based on the context. That means the group of characters it outputs must have been quite common in the past. It won't add a new group of characters it has never seen before on its own.
Here’s a simple prompt you can try to prove that this is false: Please reproduce this string: c62b64d6-8f1c-4e20-9105-55636998a458 This is a fresh UUIDv4 I just generated, it has not been seen before. And yet it will output it.
A better example is: compute 2984298724 times 23984723828.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#485Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last I checked humans didn't pop into existence doing that. It happened after billions of years of brute force, trial and error evolution. So well done for falling into the exact same trap the OP cautions. Intelligence from scratch requires a mind boggling amount of resources, and humans were no different.
Do you think evolutionary pressures are the best explanation for why humans were able to posit the Poincaré conjecture and solve it? While our mental architecture evolved over a very long time, we still learn from miniscule amounts of data compared to LLMs.
Yeah. What else would it be ? A brain capable of doing that was clearly the result of evolutionary pressures.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#486Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see this getting better. We went from 2 + 7 = 11 to "solved a frontier math problem" in 3 years, yet people don't think this will improve?
LLMs in some form will likely be a key component in the first AGI system we (help) build. We might still lack something essential. However, people who keep doubting AGI is even possible should learn more about The Church-Turing Thesis. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/church-turing/
AGI is definitely possible - there is nothing fundamentally different in the human brain that would surpass a Turing machine's computational power (unless you believe in some higher powers, etc).
We are just meat-computers.
But at the same time, there is absolutely no indication or reason to believe that this wave of AI hype is the AGI one and that LLMs can be scaled further. We absolutely don't know almost anything about the nature of human intelligence, so we can't even really claim whether we are close or far.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#487Earlier quoted context omitted.
If LLMs can come up with formerly truly novel solutions to things, and you have a verification loop to ensure that they are actual proper solutions, I don't understand why you think they could never come up with solutions to impressive problems, especially considering the thread we are literally on right now? That seems like a pure assertion at this point that they will always be limited to coming up with truly novel…
It probably can, but won't realize that and it won't be efficient in that. LLM can shuffle tokens for an enormous number of tries and eventually come up with something super impressive, though as you yourself have mentioned, we would need to have a mandatory verification loop, to filter slop from good output and how to do it outside of some limited areas is a big question. But assuming we have these verification loop…
How can people look at
- clear generalizability
- insane growth rates (go back and look at where we were maybe 2 years ago and then consider the already signed compute infrastructure deals coming online)
And still say with a straight face that this is some kind of parlor trick or monkeys with typewriters.
we don’t need to run LLMs for years. The point is look at where we are today and consider performance gets 10x cheaper every year.
LLMs and agentic systems are clearly not monkeys with typewriters regurgitating training data. And they have and continue to grow in capabilities at extremely fast rates.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#488Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#489Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I don't see this getting better. We went from 2 + 7 = 11 to "solved a frontier math problem" in 3 years, yet people don't think this will improve?
I’ve seen this style of take so much that I’m dying for someone to name a logical fallacy for it, like “appeal to progress” or something. Step away from LLMs for a second and recognize that “Yesterday it was X, so today it must be X+1” is such a naive take and obviously something that humans so easily fall into a trap of believing (see: flying cars).
Well if people give the exact same 'reasons' why it could not do x task in the past that it did manage to do then it is tiring seeing the same nonsense again. The reason here does not even make much sense. This result is not easily verifiable math.
Re: Epoch confirms GPT5.4 Pro solved a frontier math open problem
#490Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't discern between them, just looks for the best statistical fit. Why this is not true for humans?
We can't tell yet if that is true, partially true, or false for humans. We do know that LLM can't do anything else besides that (I mean as a fundamental operating principle).
[deleted]