First Proof
1–10 of 126 posts
Re: First Proof
#2This is a very interesting contribution to the AI/math space. I hope it can be seen by nonmathematicians interested in this. The mathematicians involved are quite well known (Martin Hairer is a Fields medalist). See https://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/1qx77l7/a_new_ai_math... for some discussions.
Re: First Proof
#3Re: First Proof
#4February 13th is a pretty close deadline. They should at least have given a month.
Re: First Proof
#5I'll patiently wait for the "goalpost moving olympics" after this is published.
Re: First Proof
#6Can someone explain how this would work?
> the answers are known to the authors of the questions but will remain encrypted for a short time.
Ok. But humans may be able to solve the problems too. What prevents Anthropic or OpenAI from hiring mathematicians, have them write the proof and pass it off as LLM written? I'm not saying that's what they'll do. But shouldn't the paper say something about how they're going to validate that this doesn't happen?
Honest question here. Not trying to start a flame here. Honestly confused how this is going to test what it wants to test. Or maybe I'm just plain confused. Someone help me understand this?
Re: First Proof
#7Anything special about these questions? Are they unsolved by humans. I am not working in mathematics research so its hard to tell the importance.
Re: First Proof
#8February 13th is a pretty close deadline. They should at least have given a month.
February 13 seems right to me. I mean it's not like LLMs need to manually write out a 10 page proof. But a longer deadline can give human mathematicians time to solve the problem and write out a proof. A close deadline advantages the LLM and disadvantages humans which should be the goal if we want to see if LLMs are able to solve these.
Re: First Proof
#9Anything special about these questions? Are they unsolved by humans. I am not working in mathematics research so its hard to tell the importance.
The abstract of the article is very short, and seems pretty clear to both of your questions.
This is what is special about them:
> a set of ten math questions which have arisen naturally in the research process of the authors. The questions had not been shared publicly until now;
I.e. these are problems of some practical interest, not just performative/competitive maths.
And this is what is know about the solutions:
> the answers are known to the authors of the questions but will remain encrypted for a short time.
I.e. a solution is known, but is guaranteed to not be in the training set for any AI.
Re: First Proof
#10Anything special about these questions? Are they unsolved by humans. I am not working in mathematics research so its hard to tell the importance.
The abstract of the article is very short, and seems pretty clear to both of your questions. This is what is special about them: > a set of ten math questions which have arisen naturally in the research process of the authors. The questions had not been shared publicly until now; I.e. these are problems of some practical interest, not just performative/competitive maths. And this is what is know about the solutions:…
> I.e. a solution is known, but is guaranteed to not be in the training set for any AI.
Not a mathematician and obviously you guys understand this better than I do. One thing I can't understand is how they're going to judge if a solution was AI written or human written. I mean, a human could also potentially solve the problem and pass it off as AI? You might say why would a human want to do that? Normal mathematicians might not want to do that. But mathematicians hired by Anthropic or OpenAI might want to do that to pass it off as AI achievements?