Live data from Hacker News

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

openai.com

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#71
post #11

> claiming human authorship for a proof generated entirely by an AI system would misrepresent both the system’s contribution and the nature of genuine human intellectual work. AI has no self-awareness. It's a tool. When you assemble a furniture using a screw driver, the torque force interacts with the molecular forces inside the metal and miraculously it transfers the force to the screw though a clever geometry desig…

> AI has no self-awareness What is your mechanistic model of self awareness that yields this conclusion? > It's a tool Does your model suggest that tools can't have self awareness?

[deleted]

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#72
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The old way of establishing career credibility is being destroyed, for better or worse. Accomplishments that used to be career-defining are hard to distinguish from AI, and correlate more with access to compute. Think about Bill Gates's math paper he wrote in college. That kind of thing is gone now as a path to credibility. There's still competitions and grades, but the diversity of paths is going away. Maybe new one…

If accomplishments can't be distinguished between talented people and untalented people with compute, is there really a point in trying? I suppose one can hope that talented people given compute will be more effective than untalented people with compute, but I despair that that may not be true for much longer.

[deleted]

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#73
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you use a crane to do the "heavy lifting" for construction work, do you give full credit to the cranes?

Read the prompts in the PDF I link and see if your analogy makes sense in this context :)

Prompt quality should not matter. If a high-schooler operates the crane to lift a ton of weight 10 floors high, should the credit entirely go to the crane?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#75
post #6

My main gripe here is the lack of transparency around the total experiment and construction. I doubt that they simply pointed their model at these ten specific problems alone and gave the model one shot; therefore the $2000 number could be completely misleading, similar to P-value hacking by not disclosing the total experimental setup. I want to know: 1. How many total problems were given to the model, and what perce…

[flagged]

No, this is valid criticism. Oai gives the impression anybody could get similar results at a similar price, but that’s very likely not true. This is marketing first, then mathematics.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#76
post #9

How much do you all think it would cost to "buy" these advances from PhDs, practicing scientists?

A friend’s PhD advisor has been chasing non-sofic groups for 25 years (and was shown a preprint of the results by openai to verify them). He believed a solution would be Fields-worthy

This was not a problem that was for sale

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#77
post #11

> claiming human authorship for a proof generated entirely by an AI system would misrepresent both the system’s contribution and the nature of genuine human intellectual work. AI has no self-awareness. It's a tool. When you assemble a furniture using a screw driver, the torque force interacts with the molecular forces inside the metal and miraculously it transfers the force to the screw though a clever geometry desig…

> AI has no self-awareness What is your mechanistic model of self awareness that yields this conclusion? > It's a tool Does your model suggest that tools can't have self awareness?

I honestly don't think a language model is enough for self-awareness, regardless of the exact model of awareness.

A language model (or an image model or whatever) cannot even be sentient, and I think sentience is a prerequisite for awareness.

Even if we express a lot of our subjective experience with words, the language is just a symbolic representation of those experiences. The qualia themselves, even those that are quite abstract, are rooted in our physical presence and evolution.

You can't have an understanding of what hunger or physical pain feel like if you have no need for food or a sensory capacity for feeling pain. You can't understand what loneliness or pride at an achievement mean if you don't have a neural network wired to value social connection or status. We value connection because we're social animals that have needed each other for survival.

Even the more abstract of our subjective experiences are in some way rooted in our physical evolution.

I see no reason to believe that a neural network built entirely based on the symbolic level of language could have the features needed for the subjective experience itself.

AI awareness might actually be more believable if that awareness manifested itself in an entirely different way than in humans. But if we assume awareness because outputs resemble what we consider meaningful as humans, yet the neural network has had no inputs or evolution that could form the actual basis of human-like experience, I think we're seeing something that isn't actually there.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#78
post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

well, a bug in the Lean kernel was discovered last week by way of an LLM tricking itself and its handler into believing it had found a non-constructive proof of the existence of a nontrivial Collatz cycle, see https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/117002106099986943 and https://lipn.info/@mevenlennonbertrand/116997917683191056

That seems to have been more of a sensationalized joke. Even your link has a disclaimer in it now. Read this chat from the researcher who did this: https://leanprover.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/270676-lean...

It's not at all a joke ... that's a severe misunderstanding of the context.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#79
post #11

> claiming human authorship for a proof generated entirely by an AI system would misrepresent both the system’s contribution and the nature of genuine human intellectual work. AI has no self-awareness. It's a tool. When you assemble a furniture using a screw driver, the torque force interacts with the molecular forces inside the metal and miraculously it transfers the force to the screw though a clever geometry desig…

Sorry, OpenAI's take is correct here. If you're not convinced, here is how they prompted LLM: https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/04d1d1e4-bc75-476a-97cf-49055cd98... [0] A slightly smarter highschooler could write these. I could write these. It's clear as day that the LLM, not the human, did the heavy lift. It'd be ridiculous to give full credit to whoever wrote the prompt. [0]: Not one of the proofs in the linked article, b…

But why can’t we prompt the LLM “just do math research”? This is what I don’t understand.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#80
post #60
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say „I made this gadget with my 3d printer, but the designer is someone else (I found the model online)“. The intent, the drive, the action comes from the human

"I made this proof myself, but the designer is someone else" is an extremely unconvincing claim to ownership.

Almost as if a proof isn’t the same as a 3d print. It’s just not a good analogy
Post reply on HN