4 ms·

Yeah, when I read about AI solving international math olympiad problems it's not intelligence, it's just me projecting my math skills upon the model. > LLMs ar

Yeah, when I read about AI solving international math olympiad problems it's not intelligence, it's just me projecting my math skills upon the model. > LLMs are a mathematical model of language tokens. You give a LLM text, and it will give you a mathematically plausible response to that text. > The tech industry has accidentally invented the initial stages a completely new kind of mind, based on completely unknown principles, using completely unknown processes that have no parallel in the biological world. Or maybe our mind is based on a bunch of mathematical tricks too.

pona-a 2y ago
> AI solving international math olympiad problems is not intelligence But couldn't it be overfitting? LLMs are very good at deriving patterns, many of which humans simply can't tell apart from noise. With a few billion parameters and whatever black magic is going on inside CoT, it's not unreasonable to think even small amounts of fine-tuning combined with many epochs of training would be enough for it to conjure a compressed representation of that problem type. Without an extensive audit, I'd be skeptical of OpenAI's claims, especially given how o1 is often wrong on much more trivial compositional questions. What defines intelligence is generalization, the ability to learn new tasks from few examples, and while LLMs have made some significant progress here, they are still many orders below a child and arguably even many animals.
- svachalek 2y ago
  I suspect that's actually what's going on, LLMs are finding patterns that apply to their question and figure out how to combine them in the correct way. However, I'd also say this is how vast majority of humans solve math problems. What I've seen from o1/R1 is that they are more capable at this process than the average human, more capable than the vast majority of humans. We can say that they're not "intelligent" because they're not capable of solving problems they can't map to something in their training at all, but that would also put 99.9% of humanity in the unintelligent bucket.
- dist-epoch 2y ago
  A trained LLM can learn from a few examples. A human takes 14+ years until it's intelligent, also requires extensive training.
  - s1mplicissimus 2y ago
    6 year olds can fairly reliably count the number of occurrences of a letter in a word, at least according to the school system I attended. LLMs will never be able to do it due to their inherent limitations (being statistical next-word predictors)
  - kevin0091 2y ago
    It is a calculation not learning
    - aoeusnth1 2y ago
      the human, or the LLM?
vharuck 2y ago
>Or maybe our mind is based on a bunch of mathematical tricks too. Some people used to push the theory that quantum probability was where free will and the soul reside. That is to say, people will imagine how the hard questions of old neatly fit into the hard questions of today. Nothing won't with that, it's how we explore different paths and make progress. But I'm not one of those exploring experts, so I'll wait for stricter definitions and experimental data.

pona-a 2y ago

> AI solving international math olympiad problems is not intelligence But couldn't it be overfitting? LLMs are very good at deriving patterns, many of which humans simply can't tell apart from noise. With a few billion parameters and whatever black magic is going on inside CoT, it's not unreasonable to think even small amounts of fine-tuning combined with many epochs of training would be enough for it to conjure a compressed representation of that problem type. Without an extensive audit, I'd be skeptical of OpenAI's claims, especially given how o1 is often wrong on much more trivial compositional questions. What defines intelligence is generalization, the ability to learn new tasks from few examples, and while LLMs have made some significant progress here, they are still many orders below a child and arguably even many animals.

svachalek 2y ago
I suspect that's actually what's going on, LLMs are finding patterns that apply to their question and figure out how to combine them in the correct way. However, I'd also say this is how vast majority of humans solve math problems. What I've seen from o1/R1 is that they are more capable at this process than the average human, more capable than the vast majority of humans. We can say that they're not "intelligent" because they're not capable of solving problems they can't map to something in their training at all, but that would also put 99.9% of humanity in the unintelligent bucket.
dist-epoch 2y ago
A trained LLM can learn from a few examples. A human takes 14+ years until it's intelligent, also requires extensive training.
- s1mplicissimus 2y ago
  6 year olds can fairly reliably count the number of occurrences of a letter in a word, at least according to the school system I attended. LLMs will never be able to do it due to their inherent limitations (being statistical next-word predictors)
- kevin0091 2y ago
  It is a calculation not learning
  - aoeusnth1 2y ago
    the human, or the LLM?

vharuck 2y ago

>Or maybe our mind is based on a bunch of mathematical tricks too. Some people used to push the theory that quantum probability was where free will and the soul reside. That is to say, people will imagine how the hard questions of old neatly fit into the hard questions of today. Nothing won't with that, it's how we explore different paths and make progress. But I'm not one of those exploring experts, so I'll wait for stricter definitions and experimental data.