51–60 of 258 posts
The sad truth about this incident is that it reveals that OpenAI does not have a serious effort to actually work on unsolved math problems.
The sad truth about this incident is that it reveals that OpenAI does not have a serious effort to actually work on unsolved math problems.
https://x.com/SebastienBubeck/status/1977181716457701775:
> gpt5-pro is superhuman at literature search:
> it just solved Erdos Problem #339 (listed as open in the official database https://erdosproblems.com/forum/thread/339) by realizing that it had actually been solved 20 years ago
https://x.com/MarkSellke/status/1979226538059931886:
> Update: Mehtaab and I pushed further on this. Using thousands of GPT5 queries, we found solutions to 10 Erdős problems that were listed as open: 223, 339, 494, 515, 621, 822, 883 (part 2/2), 903, 1043, 1079.
It's clearly talking about finding existing solutions to "open" problems.
The main mistake is by Kevin Weil, OpenAI CTO, who misunderstood the tweet:
https://x.com/kevinweil/status/1979270343941591525:
> you are totally right—I actually misunderstood @MarkSellke's original post, embarrassingly enough. Still very cool, but not the right words. Will delete this since I can't edit it any longer I think.
Obviously embarassing, but completely overblown reaction. Just another way for people to dunk on OpenAI :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Humans "hallucinate" in the AI way constantly, which is why I don't see them as a barrier to LLMs replacing humans in many contexts. It really isn't unusual for a human to make stuff up or be unaware of stuff.
A human being informed of a mistake will usually be able to resolve it and learn something in the process, whereas an LLM is more likely to spiral into nonsense
But yes, as an edge case handler humans still have an edge.
Humans hallucinating about AI.
Humans hallucinating about AI.
Humans "hallucinate" in the AI way constantly, which is why I don't see them as a barrier to LLMs replacing humans in many contexts. It really isn't unusual for a human to make stuff up or be unaware of stuff.
(Yes, not everyone, but we do have some mechanisms to judge or encourage)
Humans hallucinating about AI.
Humans "hallucinate" in the AI way constantly, which is why I don't see them as a barrier to LLMs replacing humans in many contexts. It really isn't unusual for a human to make stuff up or be unaware of stuff.
This claim is ambiguous. The use of the word "Humans" here obscures rather than clarifies the issue. Individual humans typically do not "hallucinate" constantly, especially not on the job. Any individual human who is as bad at their job as an LLM should indeed be replaced, by a more competent individual human, not by an equally incompetent LLM. This was true long before LLMs were invented.
In the movie "Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure," the titular characters attempt to write a history report by asking questions of random strangers in a convenience store parking lot. This of course is ridiculous and more a reflection of the extreme laziness of Bill and Ted than anything else. Today, the lazy Bill and Ted would ask ChatGPT instead. It's equally ridiculous to defend the wild inaccuracy and hallucinations of LLMs by comparing them to average humans. It's not the job of humans to answer random questions on any subject.
Human subject matter experts are not perfect, but they’re much better than average and don’t hallucinate on their subjects. They also have accountability and paper trails, can be individually discounted for gross misconduct, unlike LLMs.
Another instance of openAI manipulating results to prolong their unsustainable circular hype bubble. The inevitable collapse could be even more devastating than the 2008 financial crisis. All while so vast resources are being wasted on non-verifiable gen AI slob, while real approaches (neuro-symbolic like DeepMind's AlphaFold) are mostly ignored financially because they don't generate the quick stock market increases…
People keep spouting this, but I don't see how the AI bubble bursting would be all that devastating. 2008 was a systemic breakdown rippling through the foundations of the financial system. It would lead to a market crash (80% of gains this year were big tech/AI) and likely a full recession in the US, but nothing nearly as dramatic as a global systemic crisis. In contrast to the dot com bubble, the huge AI spending is…
Due to exorbitant privilege, with the dollar as the only currency that matters, every country that trades with America is swapping goods and services for 'bits of green paper'. Unless buying oil from Russia, these bits of green paper are needed to buy oil. National currencies and the Euro might as well be casino chips, mere proxies for dollars.
Just last week the IMF issued a warning regarding AI stocks and the risk they pose to the global economy if promises are not delivered.
With every hiccup, whether that be the dot com boom, 2008 or the pandemic, the way out is to print more money, with this money going in at the top, for the banks, not the masses. This amounts to devaluation.
When the Ukraine crisis started, the Russian President stopped politely going along with Western capitalism and called the West out for printing too much money during the pandemic. Cut off from SWIFT and with many sanctions, Russia started trading in other currencies with BRICS partners. We are now at a stage of the game where the BRICS countries, of which there are many, already have a backup plan for when the next US financial catastrophe happens. They just won't use the dollar anymore. Note that currently, China doesn't want any dollars making it back to its own economy, since that would cause inflation. So they invest their dollars in Belt and Road initiatives, keeping those green bits of paper safely away from China. They don't even need exports to the USA or Europe since they have a vast home market to develop.
Note that Russia's reserve of dollars and euros was confiscated. They have nothing to lose so they aren't going to come back into the Western financial system.
Hence, you are right. A market crash won't be a global systematic crisis, it just means that Shanghai becomes the financial capital of the world, with no money printing unless it is backed up by mineral, energy or other resources that have tangible value. This won't be great for the collective West, but pretty good for the rest of the world.