▲ 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
[+] 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 [–] 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 [–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion? 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
[–] 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
[–] ayyy@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 week ago Can you expand on how you came to this conclusion? permalink fedilink source parent