981–990 of 1001 posts
As I have stated before, AI will win a fields medal before it can manage a McDonald's A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation. LLMs are just the beginning, we'll see more specialized math AI resembling StockFish soon.
our local AI models are already capable of running McDonalds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remember from ...when?
Before birth. ...Hey, don't point that pitchfork at me, point it at Socrates. In his defense, that kind of does describe when LLMs acquired their knowledge (if we consider "birth" to be the moment when the already-trained weights are sent to the GPU) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anamnesis_(philosophy)
Any scientific basis for this claim?
Pre-conception is unlikely to be really possible outside some esoteric circles. While in the womb there could be some limited experiences that get ingrained in the mind as memories, but I don't think that's the topic here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have no idea about research in mathematics: How will mathematicians judge what constitutes new conceptual math that is actually useful, vs a hallucination that might be novel but doesn't introduce anything actual meaningful?
It’s basically up to the domain experts. What I found interesting in mathematical optimization/combinatorics (my fields of interest) when an AI proved some major results some time ago was probably dismissed as a boring fact by someone else. What OP is mentioning is just their personal preference and doesn’t reflect the actual opinion of the mathematical world.
Indeed, I never claim that my idiosyncrasies represent math at large.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is true, but I still think the relevant question is, how many did they try before they found one that yielded to LLMs? The conclusion is very different if they tried 100 open problems and succeeded at one.
Yeah, maybe it's just the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy basically, but with AI. And if it isn't, we should find out very soon. If AI has got so good as OpenAI's post implies, then we should soon see a veritable blooming in the production of mathematical results, by lay people no less. No mathematicians needed! OpenAI say that their secret LLM solved the planar unit distance problem "autonomously" and the companion remar…
As I have stated before, AI will win a fields medal before it can manage a McDonald's A difficult part was constructing a chess board on which to play math (Lean). Now it's just pattern recognition and computation. LLMs are just the beginning, we'll see more specialized math AI resembling StockFish soon.
Stockfish did not teach itself to play chess. You are probably thinking of Leela Chess Zero - an open re-implementation of AlphaZero - both were given nothing but the rules of chess and a board and played millions of games against themselves until they were the strongest engine available at the time. Stockfish's neural net evaluation model was trained on millions of its positions with its own original algorithmic eva…
Nitpick: it’s Elo, not ELO. The name comes from the inventor’s surname and is not an acronym.
I like how everyone laughed when OpenAI said their models will have "PhD-Level Intelligence" and now the goalpost has been moved to if AI can create new math (i.e., not PhD-Level, but Leibniz/Euler/Galois level.)
This is impressive, no question. Without knowing all this model has been trained on though, it is pretty hard to ascertain the extent to which it arrived to this "on its own". The entire AI industry has been (not so secretly) paying a lot of experts in many fields to generate large amounts of novel training data. Novel training data that isn't found anywhere else--they hoard it--and which could actually contain origi…
Exactly. Maybe OpenAI paid mathematicians to keep this discovery quiet, then added their proof to the training data, then manipulated a second team into prompting for this question such that the model could regurgitate the solution. This would plausibly explain why the model seems so capable at doing things like refuting fundamental theorems of mathematics while in things like competitive programming, biology, and ph…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure what your point is - can you expand?
I am also an AI skeptic, but I would rather have used the 1000 monkeys with a 1000 typewriters will eventually write the whole works of Shakespeare analogy. When you consider the amount of computation which went into this discovery it is less impressive. Like if you spend a lot of fuel you can travel really fast, much faster then a bicyclist. Similarly Go-engines can beat the best humans at go, but they spend several…
From what I can find AlphaGo Zero runs at ~400 watts, while a human brain uses ~20. So really only about 1 order of magnitude difference.
Of course, training costs are a different question entirely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Math is an abstraction of reality, it had to be invented, so more inventions or discoveries could be made within it.
What is an abstraction? It is something that arises from human thought and human thought arises from the activity of neurons which are a part of reality. You can't escape reality unless you invoke some form of dualism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's here for anyone wondering - https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/1625eff6-5ac1-40d8-b1db-5d5cf925d...
So, I'm not really a mathematician, but the first 3-8 pages reads like nonsense and a bunch of unrelated facts. A bit surreal may be, but if this the norm for this kind of thing, I'm amazed it arrives at any useful result at all.