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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#901

Post by alberto-m »

DiscourseFan wrote: post #839
andai wrote: post #805

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it might be like waveform collapse, but very high dimensional.

Can you expand on this?

Not OP, but my interpretation is this.

Quantum waveform collapse has been proposed as explanation for consciousness, allowing to explain how an entity can have free will and yet obey rigid physical laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness_causes_collapse

I think OP is suggesting a similar thing happened in the LLM, implying it gained consciousness despite following a well-defined compute process.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#902

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

scarmig wrote: post #711
throwaway27448 wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sigmoidal, not exponential. It would be insane to assume an exponential curve

Everything has limits, of course. But if you've not yet seen a deceleration, it's reasonable to expect that at the least you're in the middle of the sigmoid, not the top.

> But if you've not yet seen a deceleration

We have though. The velocity remains high but the acceleration is decreasing.

The improvement between gpt 2-4 where staggering. to 5, 5.6? Much less so.

The results improve of course, but the difference is no longer mind blowing.

Most of the improvement now has come from agentic harnessing, which is unrelated to the acceleration of the model but the tooling around the use of the model.

So we are seeing a deceleration and the speed is still high due to high prev acceleration but its not growing at the same rate as before and the edges are starting to show themselves

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#903

Post by alberto-m »

aswegs8 wrote: post #852
watutalkinbout wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't an implementation for neurons, unless you believe in a designing god. Matrices are an implementation detail in reconstructing the surface of human knowledge. It's a complex surface, but it's a regurgitation.

What's the argument here? It's not about the implementation method, it is about the behavior that emerges from it. You could calculate the next token by hand on paper if you had enough time.

It's incredible how the “Chinese Room” argument, as well as its counterarguments, is still incredibly pertinent despite being now more than 40 years old. Scientific American published many articles on this topic in the Eighties; they seem as fresh as ever.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#904

Post by koe123 »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #885
koe123 wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, if provided the financial incentive would mathematicians have solved these problems? Its not hard to imagine a world where some hard problems were not selected by the sparse experts for whatever reason (lack of interest, whatever), which could have been solved if someone was throwing down millions for solutions.

nothing prevented us from defining cryptocurrencies, auto-rewarding new math in objective manners, grading theorem surprisal objectively, etc. before the advent of LLM's. being lucky enough to receive the opportunity of hiding in some academic closet, poking your hand out begging for scraps, was a different, perfectly alternative path humans decided to take instead. It's a bit late to start standing up for your right…

Thats true, although once it stops being a party trick I expect the LLM proof mining to also be paid by someone else and be expensive as shit, the question same remains: who?

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#905

Post by Chance-Device »

orangecat wrote: post #540
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The AI companies themselves, who are highly motivated to sell AI as overall positive for society, notwithstanding some security/etc risks, and who have economists on the payroll to think about things like this, do not seem to have found any possible positive outcome to present. Shane Legg (DeepMind co-founder), one of the more intelligent and thoughtful people you'll find in the industry, could only offer "it's a tou…

do not seem to have found any possible positive outcome to present See "Machines of Loving Grace" by Dario Amodei: https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace .

You know, I think Dario should have kept the Richard Brautigan theme in his essay titles. I think that I was trying to describe you to someone is an absolutely perfect match for introducing an AGI that has been achieved. It’s basically the same idea in blank verse, about a spread of a different technology, and made personal along the way.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#906

Post by criddell »

whimsicalism wrote: post #630
criddell wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do any of the big AI companies have a model that are good at tasks that require learning? For example, every day people teach teenagers how to drive and with only dozens of hours of practice, they are on the road.

is this not essentially what ARC-AGI-3 is? i agree that in-context/continual learning is somewhere the models are still mostly weak at

I don't think any of the ARC-AGI-3 tests are very interesting. At least not as interesting as driving a car. Children literally do a similar task in go karts every day.

Another interesting task would be to take the AI in a robot body into a vegetable garden and teach it to pull weeds. This is another task that lots of children help out with.

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#907

Post by [deleted] »

antirez wrote: post #100
robinhouston wrote: post #87

In a way the most remarkable thing about this is that it isn't even at the top of the HN homepage. Even if this is a step up from what we've seen before, we're no longer astonished by the idea that AI can make significant advances in mathematics and computer science.

This is not at the top as it is actively flagged by people that can't psychologically cope with the advances of AI. Hacker News is no longer a web site of an elite.

[deleted]

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#908

Post by mikeodds »

naasking wrote: post #886
whilenot-dev wrote: post #825

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cambridge Analytica gathered data to build targeted profiles and used these profiles for political advertising without informed consent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...

Yes, but there is little evidence this had a meaningful effect on votes.

The way the documentary never questioned their sales guys claims felt naive

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#909

Post by [deleted] »

Chance-Device wrote: post #269
matteoraso wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have had to deal with getting their jobs automated away for centuries. None of this is new, and perhaps reminding ourselves of this is the best way to cope.

I understand your sentiment, but I think this really is something different. This isn’t a craft going away, or even an industry being replaced, it’s potentially everything we do. It’s the ground being pulled away beneath people’s feet, everyone, everywhere all at once. I think the vacuum it leaves in people’s lives needs to be filled with something, and I haven’t heard any good ideas about this or how the transition…

[deleted]

Re: Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science

#910

Post by naasking »

Peaches4Rent wrote: post #900
naasking wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but there is little evidence this had a meaningful effect on votes.

Don't think that it matters if it was effective. There's a reason attempted murder is a crime even if it was unsuccessful

It does matter though. If you want to murder someone by hitting them with a plushie, you're not going to get charged with attempted murder because it's not possible that that would ever work. There must be justification that the choice will have the intended effect.

We should not be gung-ho to give the government more power to regulate speech.

Post reply on HN