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

First Proof

arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 126 posts

Re: First Proof

#71

Post by awesome_dude »

direwolf20 wrote: post #69
pegasus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are transient only in those rare domains that can be fully formalized/specified. Like chess. Anything that depends on the messy world of human - world interactions will require humans in the loop for translation and verification purposes.

How is chess not fully specified?

I'm guessing that they were referring to the depth of the decision tree able to be computed in a given amount of time?

In essence, it used to be (I have not stayed current) that the "AI" was limited on how many moves into the future it could use to determine which move was most optimal.

That limit means that it is impossible to determine all the possible moves and which is guaranteed to lead to a win. (The "best" than can be done is to have a Machine Learning algorithm choose the most likely set of moves that a human would take from the current state, and which of that set would most likely lead to a win.

Re: First Proof

#72

Post by _alternator_ »

data_maan wrote: post #35
_alternator_ wrote: post #15

These are very serious research level math questions. They are not “Erdős style” questions; they look more like problems or lemmas that I encountered while doing my PhD. Things that don’t make it into the papers but were part of an interesting diversion along the way. It seems likely that PhD students in the subfields of the authors are capable of solving these problems. What makes them interesting is that they seem…

Very serious for mathematicians - not for ML researchers. If the paper would not have had the AI spin, would those 10 questions still have been interesting? It seems to me that we have here a paper that is solely interesting because of the AI spin -- while at the same time this AI spin is really poorly executed from the point of AI research, where this should be a blog post at most, not an arXiv preprint.

I’m confused by this comment. I’m pretty sure that someone at all the bigs labs is running these questions through their models and will report back as soon as the results arrive (if not sooner, assuming they can somehow verify the answers).

The fact that you find it odd that this landed on arXiv is maybe a cultural thing… mathematicians kinda reflexively throw work up there that they think should be taken seriously. I doubt that they intend to publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

Re: First Proof

#73

Post by mw888 »

nemo1618 wrote: post #33
Syzygies wrote: post #23

I'm a mathematician relying heavily on AI as an association engine of massive scope, to organize and expand my thoughts. One doesn't get best results by "testing" AI. A surfboard is also an amazing tool, but there's more to operating one than telling it which way to go. Many people want self-driving cars so they can drink in the back seat watching movies. They'll find their jobs replaced by AI, with a poor quality of…

Centaurs are a transient phenomenon. In chess, the era of centaur supremacy lasted only about a decade before computers alone eclipsed human+computer. The same will be true in every other discipline. You can surf the wave, but sooner or later, the wave will come crashing down.

Why do you nitpick his illustrative example and entirely ignore his substantive one about finance?

Re: First Proof

#75

Post by heliumtera »

_alternator_ wrote: post #72
data_maan wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very serious for mathematicians - not for ML researchers. If the paper would not have had the AI spin, would those 10 questions still have been interesting? It seems to me that we have here a paper that is solely interesting because of the AI spin -- while at the same time this AI spin is really poorly executed from the point of AI research, where this should be a blog post at most, not an arXiv preprint.

I’m confused by this comment. I’m pretty sure that someone at all the bigs labs is running these questions through their models and will report back as soon as the results arrive (if not sooner, assuming they can somehow verify the answers). The fact that you find it odd that this landed on arXiv is maybe a cultural thing… mathematicians kinda reflexively throw work up there that they think should be taken seriously.…

the last unsolved erdos problem proof generated by llms that hit the news was so non interesting that a paper published by erdos himself stated the proof

aaaaaaand no one cared enough to check

so i think the question is, are those interesting by themselves, or, are they just non interesting problems no one will ever care about except it would be indicative llms are good for solving complex novel problems that do not exists in their training set?

Re: First Proof

#76

Post by mlmonkey »

Syzygies wrote: post #23

I'm a mathematician relying heavily on AI as an association engine of massive scope, to organize and expand my thoughts. One doesn't get best results by "testing" AI. A surfboard is also an amazing tool, but there's more to operating one than telling it which way to go. Many people want self-driving cars so they can drink in the back seat watching movies. They'll find their jobs replaced by AI, with a poor quality of…

Very well written. Thank you for putting down your thoughts so succinctly; I'm often at a loss for words when I try to express the same thoughts in a coherent manner.

Re: First Proof

#77

Post by makoConstruct »

Syzygies wrote: post #23

I'm a mathematician relying heavily on AI as an association engine of massive scope, to organize and expand my thoughts. One doesn't get best results by "testing" AI. A surfboard is also an amazing tool, but there's more to operating one than telling it which way to go. Many people want self-driving cars so they can drink in the back seat watching movies. They'll find their jobs replaced by AI, with a poor quality of…

You didn't need to make this claim about driving. Coding requires robust metacognition. Driving doesn't, it can be drilled repetitively, and it also benefits from having superhuman senses and instant reaction times. It's somewhat more amenable to AI.

Re: First Proof

#78

Post by dwohnitmok »

noosphr wrote: post #67
nemo1618 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Centaurs are a transient phenomenon. In chess, the era of centaur supremacy lasted only about a decade before computers alone eclipsed human+computer. The same will be true in every other discipline. You can surf the wave, but sooner or later, the wave will come crashing down.

Last I heard, which was last year, human + computer still beat either by themselves. You got a link about what's changed?

I'm curious what you heard exactly. As far as I can tell, centaur chess looks completely dead.

Nobody ever wins anymore in the ICCF championships (which I believe is the most prestigious centaur chess venue, but am not sure).

This is not an exaggeration. See my comment from several months ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45768948

As far as I can tell based on scanning forums, to the extent humans contribute anything to the centaur setup, it is entirely in hardware provisioning and allocating enough server time before matches for chess engines to do precomputation, rather than anything actually chess related, but I am unsure on this point.

I have heard anecdotally from non-serious players (and therefore I cannot be certain that this reflects sentiment at the highest levels although the ICCF results seem to back this up) that the only ways to lose in centaur chess at this point is to deviate from what the computer tells you to do, either intentionally or unintentionally by accidentally submitting the wrong move, or simply by being at a compute disadvantage.

I've got several previous comments on this because this is a topic that interests me a lot, but the two most topical here are the previous one and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33022581.

Re: First Proof

#79

Post by cowsandmilk »

data_maan wrote: post #58
j_maffe wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The timed-reveal aspect is also interesting.

How is that interesting for a scientific point of view? This seems more like a social experiment dressed as science. Science should be about reproducibility, and almost nothing here is reproducible.

Deepmind’s Nobel Prize was primarily for its performance in CASP which is pretty much exactly this. Labs solve structures of proteins, but don’t publish them until after all the computational teams predict structures.

So I’m not sure where you’re coming from claiming that this isn’t scientific.

Re: First Proof

#80

Post by Brian_K_White »

direwolf20 wrote: post #69
pegasus wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are transient only in those rare domains that can be fully formalized/specified. Like chess. Anything that depends on the messy world of human - world interactions will require humans in the loop for translation and verification purposes.

How is chess not fully specified?

They said chess was an example of something that is fully specified.
Post reply on HN