3 ms·

> the actual software we use daily doesn’t seem like it’s getting noticeably better. %100 agree, I am testing o1 for some math problems. I asked that to prove

> the actual software we use daily doesn’t seem like it’s getting noticeably better. %100 agree, I am testing o1 for some math problems. I asked that to prove convolution of two gaussian is gaussian. It gave me 3 page algebraic solution it is correct but not elegant nor good. I have seen more ingenious solution. These tools are really good at doing something but not good at doing like expert human as they claimed.

OhNoNotAgain_99 2y ago
[dead]
senko 2y ago
> I asked that to prove convolution of two gaussian is gaussian. [The solution] is correct but not elegant. The goalposts are moving at the speed of light. A few years ago if someone told us that you could ask a computer to compose a poem, critique a painting, write a professional 360 performance review based on notes, design a website based on a napkin sketch, prove convolution theorems, ... they would say that's a stretch even for sci-fi. Now we have a single LLM that can do all of that, at some level of quality. Yet, the solutions are not elegant enough, the code not completely correct, the design is not inspired and the poem is "slop".
- demirbey05 2y ago
  tbh I am ai skeptic, I think agi cannot be achieved by only with deep learning, but really impressed with o1. I didn't like 4o, but I am against only overhype.
- blharr 2y ago
  Eh, I mean that proof is all around in its training set. It's a fundamental, basic theorem in probability. You can put the same thing into a search engine and get a better solution, for [example](https://jeremy9959.net/Math-5800-Spring-2020/notebooks/convolution_of_gaussians.html https://jeremy9959.net/Math-5800-Spring-2020/notebooks/convo...) Nobody's saying that these aren't fascinating, just that it's not looking like their models are getting significantly better and better as all the hype wants you to believe. Transformers + huge data set is incredible. But literally we've scraped all the data on the web and made huge sacrifices to our entire society already
- habinero 2y ago
  It can't do any of that, though. There's no thought or reasoning behind anything LLMs generate, it's just a statistical pile of stuff. It's never going to generate anything new. It literally can't. However, they are really good at highlighting just how many people will believe nonsense stated confidently.
  - senko 2y ago
    > It's never going to generate anything new. It literally can't. It can't on it's own. But why does it need to? As a tool, the user can provide insight, imagination, soul, or guidance. And let's be honest, very little in our life, work, entertainment or science is completely new. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, remix existing work and reinterpreting existing work.
  - harshitaneja 2y ago
    At this point if you believe they don't produce anything new is either of two things- a) having not given a fair shot to the current flagship models or b) you have a very narrow definition of new that is satisfied only by a very minuscule of human population. If it's the latter, then agreed it doesn't produce anything new but so doesn't most of humanity and it doesn't need to, to be able to be of assistance.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - BlueTemplar 2y ago
    While so far I consider NNs to be mostly useless / harmful myself, don't you think that you might be overestimating what human beings themselves are doing ?

OhNoNotAgain_99 2y ago

[dead]

senko 2y ago

> I asked that to prove convolution of two gaussian is gaussian. [The solution] is correct but not elegant. The goalposts are moving at the speed of light. A few years ago if someone told us that you could ask a computer to compose a poem, critique a painting, write a professional 360 performance review based on notes, design a website based on a napkin sketch, prove convolution theorems, ... they would say that's a stretch even for sci-fi. Now we have a single LLM that can do all of that, at some level of quality. Yet, the solutions are not elegant enough, the code not completely correct, the design is not inspired and the poem is "slop".

demirbey05 2y ago
tbh I am ai skeptic, I think agi cannot be achieved by only with deep learning, but really impressed with o1. I didn't like 4o, but I am against only overhype.
blharr 2y ago
Eh, I mean that proof is all around in its training set. It's a fundamental, basic theorem in probability. You can put the same thing into a search engine and get a better solution, for [example](https://jeremy9959.net/Math-5800-Spring-2020/notebooks/convolution_of_gaussians.html https://jeremy9959.net/Math-5800-Spring-2020/notebooks/convo...) Nobody's saying that these aren't fascinating, just that it's not looking like their models are getting significantly better and better as all the hype wants you to believe. Transformers + huge data set is incredible. But literally we've scraped all the data on the web and made huge sacrifices to our entire society already
habinero 2y ago
It can't do any of that, though. There's no thought or reasoning behind anything LLMs generate, it's just a statistical pile of stuff. It's never going to generate anything new. It literally can't. However, they are really good at highlighting just how many people will believe nonsense stated confidently.
- senko 2y ago
  > It's never going to generate anything new. It literally can't. It can't on it's own. But why does it need to? As a tool, the user can provide insight, imagination, soul, or guidance. And let's be honest, very little in our life, work, entertainment or science is completely new. We all stand on the shoulders of giants, remix existing work and reinterpreting existing work.
- harshitaneja 2y ago
  At this point if you believe they don't produce anything new is either of two things- a) having not given a fair shot to the current flagship models or b) you have a very narrow definition of new that is satisfied only by a very minuscule of human population. If it's the latter, then agreed it doesn't produce anything new but so doesn't most of humanity and it doesn't need to, to be able to be of assistance.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- BlueTemplar 2y ago
  While so far I consider NNs to be mostly useless / harmful myself, don't you think that you might be overestimating what human beings themselves are doing ?