▲ 332 ▼ OpenAI Is Pissing Off a Bunch of Mathematicians—Again (www.wired.com) submitted 1 week ago by Mustachius_Grumpius to c/technology@lemmy.world 83 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] kromem@lemmy.world 28 points 1 week ago (13 children) Now, after release, here's an example of the initial thoughts of someone who had spent time on one of the solved problems: permalink fedilink source hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 59 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) I think people really need to understand the "it just took a bunch of public work and connected the pieces" isn't a gotcha for LLMs: it's one of the sales pitches. The cross-discipline general knowledge combined with the ability to churn huge datasets to find connections across already-known work, and extrapolate to or derive novel findings, is exactly one mode of superhuman success that AI companies have been trying to achieve. The bigger issue is that they may be camping human efforts then kill-stealing the last hit on the boss by burning millions of dollars to get a proof a few days/weeks/months earlier than when it would have happened without AI. Basically, waiting for problems to be all-but-formally solved, then beating the researchers to the punch; like the recent Millenium controversy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (2 children) The cross-discipline general knowledge combined with the ability to churn huge datasets to find connections across already-known work, and extrapolate to or derive novel findings, is exactly one mode of superhuman success that AI companies have been trying to achieve. Exactly. Like in the quoted picture, there's not a huge amount of people who have deep knowledge of Number Theory and the number of them who are also similarly versed in the math behind Quantum Physics could probably be counted on one hand and those people only have so much time. Meanwhile, the only limitation in creating these AI systems is in how much RAM/compute we can manufacture. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] demonsword@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) Meanwhile, the only limitation in creating these AI systems is in how much RAM/compute we can manufacture. You need large volumes of high quality training data too, which are btw much harder to come by now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CrossingtheAbyss@lemmy.today 1 point 6 days ago There are massive libraries or repositories of scientific/mathematical published research throughout higher education institutions and across various technological industries. The required training data exists. permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago In other words, this person doesn't yet know if it's correct. permalink fedilink source parent [+] limer@lemmy.ml -12 points 1 week ago (7 children) Making things very obscured is not a proof. The guy is politely saying it’s nonsense permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 child) I don't think that's what's being said. More like the complexities of the solution are taking a while to understand because it is a complex solution using complex math. Even the smartest people in their fields can't always look at a solution and at a glance understand everything without truly digesting what they're seeing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago complex solution using complex math. Not sure if "really complicated" or "√-1" permalink fedilink source parent [–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) That is not at all what he just said permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] limer@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago it’s a pretty inconclusive statement , and can be interpreted. Post here when he and others say it’s correct permalink fedilink source parent [–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 9 points 1 week ago It sounds more like when AI won in Go for the first time. People were looking at the game and saying "humans don't play like that, we don't understand those moves". permalink fedilink source parent [–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion? permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago I think it's more that he's saying "interesting approach, but not verified yet." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 59 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children) I think people really need to understand the "it just took a bunch of public work and connected the pieces" isn't a gotcha for LLMs: it's one of the sales pitches. The cross-discipline general knowledge combined with the ability to churn huge datasets to find connections across already-known work, and extrapolate to or derive novel findings, is exactly one mode of superhuman success that AI companies have been trying to achieve. The bigger issue is that they may be camping human efforts then kill-stealing the last hit on the boss by burning millions of dollars to get a proof a few days/weeks/months earlier than when it would have happened without AI. Basically, waiting for problems to be all-but-formally solved, then beating the researchers to the punch; like the recent Millenium controversy permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (2 children) The cross-discipline general knowledge combined with the ability to churn huge datasets to find connections across already-known work, and extrapolate to or derive novel findings, is exactly one mode of superhuman success that AI companies have been trying to achieve. Exactly. Like in the quoted picture, there's not a huge amount of people who have deep knowledge of Number Theory and the number of them who are also similarly versed in the math behind Quantum Physics could probably be counted on one hand and those people only have so much time. Meanwhile, the only limitation in creating these AI systems is in how much RAM/compute we can manufacture. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] demonsword@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) Meanwhile, the only limitation in creating these AI systems is in how much RAM/compute we can manufacture. You need large volumes of high quality training data too, which are btw much harder to come by now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CrossingtheAbyss@lemmy.today 1 point 6 days ago There are massive libraries or repositories of scientific/mathematical published research throughout higher education institutions and across various technological industries. The required training data exists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world -3 points 1 week ago (2 children) The cross-discipline general knowledge combined with the ability to churn huge datasets to find connections across already-known work, and extrapolate to or derive novel findings, is exactly one mode of superhuman success that AI companies have been trying to achieve. Exactly. Like in the quoted picture, there's not a huge amount of people who have deep knowledge of Number Theory and the number of them who are also similarly versed in the math behind Quantum Physics could probably be counted on one hand and those people only have so much time. Meanwhile, the only limitation in creating these AI systems is in how much RAM/compute we can manufacture. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] demonsword@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) Meanwhile, the only limitation in creating these AI systems is in how much RAM/compute we can manufacture. You need large volumes of high quality training data too, which are btw much harder to come by now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CrossingtheAbyss@lemmy.today 1 point 6 days ago There are massive libraries or repositories of scientific/mathematical published research throughout higher education institutions and across various technological industries. The required training data exists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] demonsword@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 child) Meanwhile, the only limitation in creating these AI systems is in how much RAM/compute we can manufacture. You need large volumes of high quality training data too, which are btw much harder to come by now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] CrossingtheAbyss@lemmy.today 1 point 6 days ago There are massive libraries or repositories of scientific/mathematical published research throughout higher education institutions and across various technological industries. The required training data exists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] CrossingtheAbyss@lemmy.today 1 point 6 days ago There are massive libraries or repositories of scientific/mathematical published research throughout higher education institutions and across various technological industries. The required training data exists. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 7 points 1 week ago In other words, this person doesn't yet know if it's correct. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] limer@lemmy.ml -12 points 1 week ago (7 children) Making things very obscured is not a proof. The guy is politely saying it’s nonsense permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 7 child comments replies: [–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 child) I don't think that's what's being said. More like the complexities of the solution are taking a while to understand because it is a complex solution using complex math. Even the smartest people in their fields can't always look at a solution and at a glance understand everything without truly digesting what they're seeing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago complex solution using complex math. Not sure if "really complicated" or "√-1" permalink fedilink source parent [–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) That is not at all what he just said permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] limer@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago it’s a pretty inconclusive statement , and can be interpreted. Post here when he and others say it’s correct permalink fedilink source parent [–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 9 points 1 week ago It sounds more like when AI won in Go for the first time. People were looking at the game and saying "humans don't play like that, we don't understand those moves". permalink fedilink source parent [–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion? permalink fedilink source parent [–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago I think it's more that he's saying "interesting approach, but not verified yet." permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 24 points 1 week ago (1 child) I don't think that's what's being said. More like the complexities of the solution are taking a while to understand because it is a complex solution using complex math. Even the smartest people in their fields can't always look at a solution and at a glance understand everything without truly digesting what they're seeing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago complex solution using complex math. Not sure if "really complicated" or "√-1" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FauxLiving@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago complex solution using complex math. Not sure if "really complicated" or "√-1" permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ImgurRefugee114@reddthat.com 14 points 1 week ago (1 child) That is not at all what he just said permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] limer@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago it’s a pretty inconclusive statement , and can be interpreted. Post here when he and others say it’s correct permalink fedilink source parent
[–] limer@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 week ago it’s a pretty inconclusive statement , and can be interpreted. Post here when he and others say it’s correct permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 9 points 1 week ago It sounds more like when AI won in Go for the first time. People were looking at the game and saying "humans don't play like that, we don't understand those moves". permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] phutatorius@lemmy.zip 4 points 1 week ago I think it's more that he's saying "interesting approach, but not verified yet." permalink fedilink source parent