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

A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

gowers.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

541–550 of 558 posts

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#541

Post by baq »

wrer wrote: post #533
baq wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone owns them at this point and Google is outright public.

No youre missing the point of the poster - disclosures in private markets are different than public, especially in the context of large commitments - the company has no choice.

The implications are very different if everyone owns them even if they aren’t public. They may have no choice whether to share, but the owners which have the privilege to know (not everyone because earlier owners aren’t stupid) don’t act the same, right?

And let’s be honest - rules get bent all the time, especially when valuations are 9 figures. Stakeholders at this point won’t risk killing a golden goose.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#543

Post by jmillikin »

sillyfluke wrote: post #524
slibhb wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I see this happening in the enterprise. People delegate work to some LLM; work isn't always bad, sometimes it's even acceptable. But it's not their work, and as a result, the author doesn't know or understand it better than anyone else! They don't own it, they can't explain it. They literally have no value whatsoever; they're a passthrough; they're invisible. According to the blog post linked in the OP, the LLM-gen…

I think you are misunderstanding the parent's comment. >the LLM-generated results were read, understood, and confirmed by the mathematician whose work they built on. The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical. >>They don'…

  > The mathematician and the blog author are not the same person
  > (as you seem to understand). Nathanson (the mathematician) is
  > the one who is the expert verifier. He is the person who has
  > the higher value and won't be fired in some hypothetical.
The article's author is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Gowers

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#544

Post by overlord1109 »

MinimalAction wrote: post #326
kranke155 wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

try meditation.

Thanks. This might help. Are you suggesting any particular form?

Two meditation systems that I've had success with - Unified Mindfulness by Shinzen Young; and The Mind Illuminated by Culadasa.

I've felt the latter is more complicated and involved, but the rewards are tangible.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#546

Post by pmontra »

dmbche wrote: post #494
pmontra wrote: post #475

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I understood your question. Literally, of course not, but how does it relate to my points? If I had a car 100 km/h faster on straights, after some training I would probably win Monza, but that would be a car that does not conform to F1 rules (or we would have that kind of speeds now) so that would not be a F1 race. Maybe your question is about the sharing of praise between the team and the driver. I thin…

It's more to say that F1 drivers are a selected niche that is very good at winning F1 races, representing maybe a 200 to 5000/8,300,000,000 group. I doubt you could win an F1 race at all, respecting the rules. Whether the team deserves praise or not, the drivers show exceptional aptitude to win. If Terrence Tao finds a novel proof, I believe it's his exceptional aptitude that is to praise, whatever help he used. Edit…

Well, I'm absolutely sure I can't win a race respecting the rules. I would bet that no HN reader can, even if I don't know if there are pro drivers here.

I add that my bet of winning at Monza (a stop and go track with minimal turning) with a non conforming 100 km/h faster car is optimistic. Honestly, I would brake too early, carry not enough speed through chicanes and corners, waste a huge part of my speed advantage by starting accelerating from lower speed.

I also think that 50+ laps will give me plenty of chances of crashing out even with plenty of training. Maybe even kill myself, as you write.

Maybe I could take pole position with the (very) old format of the best time of two 1 hour sessions on Friday and Saturday. I think it ended in the 90s.

I still don't understand the relationship between your question and the discussion on AIs.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#547

Post by dmbche »

pmontra wrote: post #546
dmbche wrote: post #494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more to say that F1 drivers are a selected niche that is very good at winning F1 races, representing maybe a 200 to 5000/8,300,000,000 group. I doubt you could win an F1 race at all, respecting the rules. Whether the team deserves praise or not, the drivers show exceptional aptitude to win. If Terrence Tao finds a novel proof, I believe it's his exceptional aptitude that is to praise, whatever help he used. Edit…

Well, I'm absolutely sure I can't win a race respecting the rules. I would bet that no HN reader can, even if I don't know if there are pro drivers here. I add that my bet of winning at Monza (a stop and go track with minimal turning) with a non conforming 100 km/h faster car is optimistic. Honestly, I would brake too early, carry not enough speed through chicanes and corners, waste a huge part of my speed advantage…

If only a small, highly trained and specialised group can use a tool to accomplish a task that can't be accomplished by people not from the group, with or without the tool, it shows to me the proficiency of the people using the tool.

You might've missed my sentence about Terrence Tao?

Maybe I'm dense and haven't understood why you've brought up racing?

Edit0: about killing yourself driving: it highlight that the tool can't be considered "the main contributor"to an achievement if 99,99% of people would not achieve the same outcome but would be likely to die from misuse instead. The person that wrangles it and achieves exceptional outcome is all the more to praise in my book.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#548

Post by butlike »

aspenmartin wrote: post #521
jplusequalt wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a weird fucking measuring stick. By your logic crypto is one of man's greatest achievements because it received oodles of investor cash, and kicked up tons of conversations online about the nature of finance and banking.

It’s not the measuring stick, what it can do is the measuring stick. Another person comparing a system that can do Erdos proofs to a compiler or even worse, crypto? Everyone has a right to be unimpressed i just find it incredible to be so dismissive with a straight face.

It's a machine that's tricked you into thinking it's something greater. It's a calculator 2.0 with a smiley face sticker slapped on it, nothing more.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#549

Post by butlike »

pmontra wrote: post #66
mxwsn wrote: post #27

> Here’s a thought experiment: suppose that a mathematician solved a major problem by having a long exchange with an LLM in which the mathematician played a useful guiding role but the LLM did all the technical work and had the main ideas. Would we regard that as a major achievement of the mathematician? I don’t think we would. This is a cultural choice. It makes sense that in the mathematics culture we currently hav…

I replied to a comment about AI in sports and I build on that. We praise car drivers despite most of the performance in their sport comes from the car. The driver makes the difference when two cars are close in performance. Brilliances or mistakes. Horse riders too. In the case of math, the human can lead the LLM on the right track, point it to a problem or to another one. So it deserves some praise. Then the team th…

Well, kind of. In F1 there's 2 championships: the driver's championship, and the constructor's championship. The constructor's championship is for the best engineered auto. Both the driver and the engineers win separate things because it takes both.

Re: A recent experience with ChatGPT 5.5 Pro

#550

Post by butlike »

dmbche wrote: post #337
pmontra wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I replied to a comment about AI in sports and I build on that. We praise car drivers despite most of the performance in their sport comes from the car. The driver makes the difference when two cars are close in performance. Brilliances or mistakes. Horse riders too. In the case of math, the human can lead the LLM on the right track, point it to a problem or to another one. So it deserves some praise. Then the team th…

Could you win an F1 race with the latest winning car against F1 drivers?

How much practice can I get? Could I? Sure. But it depends on the timescale.
Post reply on HN