4 ms·

I think we are having a Deep Blue vs. Kasparov moment in Competitive Math right now. This is a large progress from just a few years ago and yet I think we still

I think we are having a Deep Blue vs. Kasparov moment in Competitive Math right now. This is a large progress from just a few years ago and yet I think we still are really far away from even a semi-respectable AI mathematician. What an exciting time to be alive!

drexlspivey 1y ago
More like Deep Blue vs Child prodigy. In the IMO the contestants are high school students not the greatest mathematicians in the world.
- bbconn 1y ago
  Of course contest math is not research math but the active IMO kids are pretty much the best in the world at math contests.
aldousd666 1y ago
The difference here is that no amount of brute force can produce the winning score in the timeframe. This is more of a legitimate technical milestone and less of a moral 'in principle' one that we saw with deep blue
NitpickLawyer 1y ago
Terrence Tao, in a recent podcast, said that he's very interested in "working along side these tools". He sees the best use in the near future as "explorers of human set vision" in a way. (i.e. set some ideas/parameters and let the LLMs explore and do parallel search / proof / etc) Your comparison with chess engines is pretty spot-on, that's how the best of the best chess players do prep nowadays. Gone are the multi person expert teams that analysed positions and offered advice. They now have analysts that use supercomputers to search through bajillions of positions and extract the best ideas, and distill them to their players.
- tough 1y ago
  > They now have analysts that use supercomputers to search through bajillions of positions and extract the best ideas, and distill I was recently researching AI's for this, seems it would be a huge unlock for some parts of science where this is the case too like chess
- 7373737373 1y ago
  He created a Youtube channel showcasing working alongside these tools: https://youtube.com/@TerenceTao27 https://youtube.com/@TerenceTao27
- j2kun 1y ago
  He also had some interesting things to say about these IMO results: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114881418225852441 https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114881418225852441
- ars 1y ago
  Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess The Wikipedia doesn't have much info on the results, but from other reading I got the impression that the combination produced results stronger than any individual human or computer player.
  - gjm11 1y ago
    My understanding is that they did, but don't any more; it's no longer true that humans understand enough things about chess better than computers for the human/computer collaboration to contribute anything over just using the computer. I don't think the interval between "computers are almost as strong as humans" and "computers are so much stronger than humans that there's no way for even the strongest humans to contribute anything that improves the computer's play" was very long. We'll see whether mathematics is any different...
    - KK7NIL 1y ago
      > My understanding is that they did, but don't any more; it's no longer true that humans understand enough things about chess better than computers for the human/computer collaboration to contribute anything over just using the computer. This is not true, at least not in very long time formats like correspondence chess: https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspondence-chess-and-correspondence-database-2018 https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspondence-chess-and-corre... There's also many well known cases where even very strong engines miscalculate and can be beaten (especially in fast time controls or closed positions): https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/hikaru-nakamura-crushes-computer-in-blitz-chess-top-10-of-the-2000s-rybka-vs-nakamura-2008 https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/hikaru-nakamura-crush... The horizon effect is still very real in engines, although it's getting harder and harder to exploit.

drexlspivey 1y ago

More like Deep Blue vs Child prodigy. In the IMO the contestants are high school students not the greatest mathematicians in the world.

bbconn 1y ago
Of course contest math is not research math but the active IMO kids are pretty much the best in the world at math contests.

aldousd666 1y ago

The difference here is that no amount of brute force can produce the winning score in the timeframe. This is more of a legitimate technical milestone and less of a moral 'in principle' one that we saw with deep blue

NitpickLawyer 1y ago

Terrence Tao, in a recent podcast, said that he's very interested in "working along side these tools". He sees the best use in the near future as "explorers of human set vision" in a way. (i.e. set some ideas/parameters and let the LLMs explore and do parallel search / proof / etc) Your comparison with chess engines is pretty spot-on, that's how the best of the best chess players do prep nowadays. Gone are the multi person expert teams that analysed positions and offered advice. They now have analysts that use supercomputers to search through bajillions of positions and extract the best ideas, and distill them to their players.

tough 1y ago
> They now have analysts that use supercomputers to search through bajillions of positions and extract the best ideas, and distill I was recently researching AI's for this, seems it would be a huge unlock for some parts of science where this is the case too like chess
7373737373 1y ago
He created a Youtube channel showcasing working alongside these tools: https://youtube.com/@TerenceTao27 https://youtube.com/@TerenceTao27
j2kun 1y ago
He also had some interesting things to say about these IMO results: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114881418225852441 https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/114881418225852441
ars 1y ago
Similar to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess The Wikipedia doesn't have much info on the results, but from other reading I got the impression that the combination produced results stronger than any individual human or computer player.
- gjm11 1y ago
  My understanding is that they did, but don't any more; it's no longer true that humans understand enough things about chess better than computers for the human/computer collaboration to contribute anything over just using the computer. I don't think the interval between "computers are almost as strong as humans" and "computers are so much stronger than humans that there's no way for even the strongest humans to contribute anything that improves the computer's play" was very long. We'll see whether mathematics is any different...
  - KK7NIL 1y ago
    > My understanding is that they did, but don't any more; it's no longer true that humans understand enough things about chess better than computers for the human/computer collaboration to contribute anything over just using the computer. This is not true, at least not in very long time formats like correspondence chess: https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspondence-chess-and-correspondence-database-2018 https://en.chessbase.com/post/correspondence-chess-and-corre... There's also many well known cases where even very strong engines miscalculate and can be beaten (especially in fast time controls or closed positions): https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/hikaru-nakamura-crushes-computer-in-blitz-chess-top-10-of-the-2000s-rybka-vs-nakamura-2008 https://www.chess.com/blog/SamCopeland/hikaru-nakamura-crush... The horizon effect is still very real in engines, although it's getting harder and harder to exploit.