611–620 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
> remember that gpt 4o was popular among those who had ai as a romantic partner I suspect GPT 5.6 would be even better at it, if given the same sycophantic system prompt and lack of guardrails.
People argue whether we are at y-5, y, or y+5, meanwhile we seem to be on a y=2^x exponential that keeps delivering more and more impressive results. The most interesting question to me is what will be consumed by the exponential like math seems to be undergoing, and what won’t. Writing has been quite stubborn, but I’ve noticed Fable to be quite a big step up there. How about politics? Will we develop new ways to let…
> but I’ve noticed Fable to be quite a big step up there what did you notice ?
That said, Fable is still not a great writer, largely driven by it not knowing what it should exclude, and it still having the usual LLM-isms. But it’s better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well I don't typically side with GM, but playing devil's advocate: 1. still not wrong? Unless it's just feeding the audio or screenplay I don't think you can feed AI a full movie in a single context window yet? 2. Not sure, but can you prove this wrong? Can you feed a full, unseen new book and get that kind of answer? 3. Not wrong. 4. I think he'd probably pull you up on 'bug free' - I don't think that frontier model…
4. I think they can, especially if the problem statement is well-specified and, importantly, autonomously testable. Of course, specifying a problem that meets these requirements is non-trivial, but the claim requests _a_ counterexample :P
Not being an expert in any of the fields OpenAI has "advanced" I don't want to prematurely downplay the significance of this contribution. However, I am worried that the language they are using in this blog post is exaggerating for the sake of marketing. It is true there hasn't been a reliable computational approach to solving these problems before. But do these proofs contribute new ideas to the mathematical corpus,…
You’ve received the expert answer several times. You just don’t seem to like the answer.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ask DraftKings?
You'd need this argument to be a lot more concrete as to why AI is like gambling.
Perhaps you can ask Claude to explain it to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can deal with apathy, that’s the norm. What bothers me are all the people who think they can suppress AI by talking it down. That’s what’s counterproductive, just pretend the problem doesn’t exist. Tell other people it doesn’t exist either. I get it, it’s threatening socially, economically, maybe existentially. It’s also not going away.
So you think it’s a potentially existential threat but are bothered by people who maybe want to suppress it… Hopefully you acknowledge there is a bit of lack of self awareness here eh?
Not being an expert in any of the fields OpenAI has "advanced" I don't want to prematurely downplay the significance of this contribution. However, I am worried that the language they are using in this blog post is exaggerating for the sake of marketing. It is true there hasn't been a reliable computational approach to solving these problems before. But do these proofs contribute new ideas to the mathematical corpus,…
Also on HN front page today: AI's debt binge can't last, hidden borrowing reaches $1.65T (fortune.com)
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.
I like the illustration that the models are working on a convex hull of known information. Filling gaps with linear combinations of known facts and results. They can't exit the hull until the "intuition" starts spawning points outside the convex hull.
The extent to which they are able to do this is the more interesting question!
Replace 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…
"Excuse me, We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"
DT: Might I make an observation at this point?
MT: You keep out of this metal nose.
VF: We demand that that machine not be allowed to think about this problem!
DT: If I might make an observation…
MT: We’ll go on strike!
VF: That’s right. You’ll have a national philosopher’s strike on your hands.
DT: Who will that inconvenience?
MT: Never you mind who it’ll inconvenience you box of black legging binary bits! It’ll hurt, buster! It’ll hurt!
DT: [Booming] If I might make an observation …
“All I wanted to say,” bellowed the computer, “is that my circuits are now irrevocably committed to calculating the answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything.” He paused and satisfied himself that he now had everyone’s attention, before continuing more quietly. “But the program will take me a little while to run.”
Fook glanced impatiently at his watch.
“How long?” he said.
“Seven and a half million years,” said Deep Thought.
Lunkwill and Fook blinked at each other.
“Seven and a half million years!” they cried in chorus.
“Yes,” declaimed Deep Thought, “I said I’d have to think about it, didn’t I? And it occurs to me that running a program like this is bound to create an enormous amount of popular publicity for the whole are of philosophy in general. Everyone’s going to have their own theories about what answer I’m eventually going to come up with, and who better, to capitalize on that media market than you yourselves? So long as you can keep disagreeing with each other violently enough and maligning each other in the popular press, and so long as you have clever agents, you can keep yourselves on the gravy train for life. How does that sound?”
The two philosophers gaped at him.
“Bloody hell,” said Majikthise, “now that is what I call thinking. Here, Vroomfondel, why do we never think of things like that?”
“Dunno,” said Vroomfondel in an awed whisper; “think our brains must be too highly trained, Majikthise.”
So saying, they turned on their heels and walked out of the door and into a life-style beyond their wildest dreams.”
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Wozniak test has it with a robot body going into a house, finding a coffee maker and making a cup. I guess you can vary the rules as you like.
That's a good test for a robot, not for AGI. AGI should test only intelligence and should not require limbs.