Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#511

Post by alightsoul »

Legend2440 wrote: post #502
fhfncjcc wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The models are frequently getting worse at items that they aren’t being benchmarked for — and that’s happening more and more over time! Other people in other fields aren’t idiots, they are accurately perceiving the fact that these models are being hyper optimized for our industry, and are becoming less capable in other domains over time. Models of the same scale are massively worse at writing a broad variety of style…

Proof? In my experience modern models are better at all tasks than models from two years ago, especially complex multi-step tasks.

you are working on coding. they are working on things like "creative writing" remember that gpt 4o was popular among those who had ai as a romantic partnet?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#512

Post by pama »

sdenton4 wrote: post #495
WarmWash wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Whilst current models can't 'intuit That's how they are finding these solutions though, unless we are just going to label intuition as something only humans can do. Like a submarine being unable to swim or whatever that example is.

Some of them... The two places were seeing lots of movement are: * Updates to lower/upper bounds. In many cases, these kinds of problems are the deep-math equivalent of calculating more digits of pi. Yes, if you throw time at it you'll break the record, but it may not be terribly worthwhile. * Finding counter examples which disprove conjectures. This is really useful, and helps offset some positivity bias on the huma…

It is unfair to dismiss contributions to decades old open problems as equivalent to calculating more digits of pi. It missed the mark by a lot—as does the two bucket simplifaction.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#513

Post by Legend2440 »

alightsoul wrote: post #511
Legend2440 wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Proof? In my experience modern models are better at all tasks than models from two years ago, especially complex multi-step tasks.

you are working on coding. they are working on things like "creative writing" remember that gpt 4o was popular among those who had ai as a romantic partnet?

Well that's on purpose lol. OpenAI does not want you falling in love with their chatbot and have been deliberately training it to be less romantic.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#514

Post by cubefox »

lkey wrote: post #449
deaton wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It is not 'logical' to imagine a hypothetical doomsday scenario that justifies a preemptive nuclear war. (which is what the grandparent commenter's bio contemplates, 'nuke the datacenters' is their central credo). Does it bother you that the people who are publicly cocksure that P(doom) is moments away are the same people that have profited most handsomely from that pronouncement? That the 'humanists' that want to do…

> It is not 'logical' to imagine a hypothetical doomsday scenario that justifies a preemptive nuclear war

You hallucinated the "preemptive nuclear war". He didn't say anything about nukes. That's your own invention.

> Does it bother you that the people who are publicly cocksure that P(doom) is moments away

20% is not "cocksure". The "moments" is again an exaggeration.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#515

Post by rothos »

dash2 wrote: post #453
muchmirulys wrote: post #365

problem number 1 and 9 are surprisingly very intuitive check here : 1. high dimensional sphere packing https://muchmirul.github.io/conjectures/sphere-packing/ 2. multicolor ramsey number https://muchmirul.github.io/conjectures/multicolor-ramsey

The first link is very sloppy and doesn't actually explain why the "certificate" proves anything about the sphere packing. Or if it did, I couldn't understand it.

Agreed

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#517

Post by emceestork »

gowld wrote: post #355
emceestork wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They aren't claiming that science doesn't progress by moving goal posts. They're talking about how critics of AI have claimed it isn't revolutionary/useful, then progressively changed what would it mean for AI to be actually revolutionary/useful. Not long ago many folks were saying AI was the same as the crypto bubble. No real useful technology and only hype.

Did you know that "revolutationary" is not equivalent to "useful", and "revolutionary" is quite ambiguous?

I don't know if you're trying to dunk on me. I didn't intend to imply they are synonyms.

I think AI is clearly both revolutionary and useful. Revolutionary insofar as the job I do has changed almost completely in a year or so span.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#520

Post by michaelmrose »

tuvix wrote: post #494
evenhash wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whilst current models can't 'intuit' and come up with conjectures People keep saying this. Why? Surely the AI can complete the prompt “Generate new research questions based on these observations”? When I read the reasoning traces of coding models they are constantly asking themselves questions and attempting to answer them.

All arguments like this boil down to semantics at a certain point, but yes large language models can “intuit” because they can generalize between examples. The issue then becomes how you pack new examples into context. Humans can “intuit” based on a much larger, if not unlimited, context. Also I just want to say that human cognition is something so insanely complex and deep that we will not understand it at all in my…

Define insanely complex and deep in a way that isn't illiterate hand waving.

Most humans are dumber than a box of rocks. Here in Seattle we had one of many light rail-related fuckups where they had to replace part of the line with buses. People piled into the front of one when it was full. When people got out they never moved back. As the driver struggled to close the door and people struggled to get in the wad of people never moved back to fill the ample space.

Chatgpt was smarter than the average person a while ago

Post reply on HN