4 ms·

"GPT did this". Authored by Guevara (Institute for Advanced Study), Lupsasca (Vanderbilt University), Skinner (University of Cambridge), and Strominger (Harvard

by emil-lp 8mo ago

"GPT did this". Authored by Guevara (Institute for Advanced Study), Lupsasca (Vanderbilt University), Skinner (University of Cambridge), and Strominger (Harvard University). Probably not something that the average GI Joe would be able to prompt their way to... I am skeptical until they show the chat log leading up to the conjecture and proof.

famouswaffles 8mo ago
The paper has all those prominent institutions who acknowledge the contribution so realistically, why would you be skeptical ?
- kristopolous 8mo ago
  they probably also acknowledge pytorch, numpy, R ... but we don't attribute those tools as the agent who did the work. I know we've been primed by sci-fi movies and comic books, but like pytorch, gpt-5.2 is just a piece of software running on a computer instrumented by humans.
  - famouswaffles 8mo ago
    I don't see the authors of those libraries getting a credit on the paper, do you ? >I know we've been primed by sci-fi movies and comic books, but like pytorch, gpt-5.2 is just a piece of software running on a computer instrumented by humans. Sure
    - what 8mo ago
      At least one of the authors works for OpenAI. It’s a puff piece.
  - name_taken_duh 8mo ago
    And we are just a system running on carbon-based biology in our physics computer run by whomever. What makes us special, to say that we are different than GPT-5.2?
    - palmotea 8mo ago
      > And we are just a system running on carbon-based biology in our physics computer run by whomever. What makes us special, to say that we are different than GPT-5.2? Do you really want to be treated like an old PC (dismembered, stripped for parts, and discarded) when your boss is done with you (i.e. not treated specially compared to a computer system)? But I think if you want a fuller answer, you've got a lot of reading to do. It's not like you're the first person in the world to ask that question.
      - name_taken_duh 8mo ago
        You misunderstood, I am prohumanism. My comment was about challenging the believe that models cant be as intelligent as we are, which cant be answered definitely, though a lot of empirical evidence seems to point to the fact, that we are not fundamentally different intelligence wise. Just closing our eyes will not help in preserving humanism, so we have to shape the world with models in a human friendly way, aka alignment.
    - kristopolous 8mo ago
      It's always a value decision. You can say shiny rocks are more important than people and worth murdering over. Not an uncommon belief. Here you are saying you personally value a computer program more than people It exposes a value that you personally hold and that's it That is separate from the material reality that all this AI stuff is ultimately just computer software... It's an epistemological tautology in the same way that say, a plane, car and refrigerator are all just machines - they can break, need maintenance, take expertise, can be dangerous... LLMs haven't broken the categorical constraints - you've just been primed to think such a thing is supposed to be different through movies and entertainment. I hate to tell you but most movie AIs are just allegories for institutional power. They're narrative devices about how callous and indifferent power structures are to our underlying shared humanity
- Refreeze5224 8mo ago
  Their point is, would you be able to prompt your way to this result? No. Already trained physicists working at world-leading institutions could. So what progress have we really made here?
  - famouswaffles 8mo ago
    It's a stupid point then. Are you able to work with a world leading physicist to any significant degree? No
    - emil-lp 8mo ago
      It's like saying: calculator drives new result in theoretical physics (In the hands of leading experts.)
      - famouswaffles 8mo ago
        No it's not like saying that at all, which is why Open AI have a credit on the paper.
        not_kurt_godel 8mo ago
        And even if it were, calculators (computers) were world-changing technology when they were new.
        camdenreslink 8mo ago
        Open AI have a credit on the paper because it is marketing.
        famouswaffles 8mo ago
        Lol Okay
      - Nevermark 8mo ago
        No it’s like saying: New expert drives new results with existing experts. The humans put in significant effort and couldn’t do it. They didn’t then crank it out with some search/match algorithm. They tried a new technology, modeled (literally) on us as reasoners, that is only just being able to reason at their level and it did what they couldn’t. The fact that the experts were a critical context for the model, doesn’t make the models performance any less significant. Collaborators always provide important context for each other.
Sharlin 8mo ago
I'm a big LLM sceptic but that's… moving the goalposts a little too far. How could an average Joe even understand the conjecture enough to write the initial prompt? Or do you mean that experts would give him the prompt to copy-paste, and hope that the proverbial monkey can come up with a Henry V? At the very least posit someone like a grad student in particle physics as the human user.
- slopusila 8mo ago
  hey, GPT, solve this tough conjecture I've read about on Quanta. make no mistakes
  - co_king_3 8mo ago
    [dead]
    - terminalbraid 8mo ago
      "Hey GPT thanks for the result. But is it actually true?"
- buttered_toast 8mo ago
  I would interpret it as implying that the result was due to a lot more hand-holding that what is let on. Was the initial conjecture based on leading info from the other authors or was it simply the authors presenting all information and asking for a conjecture? Did the authors know that there was a simpler means of expressing the conjecture and lead GPT to its conclusion, or did it spontaneously do so on its own after seeing the hand-written expressions. These aren't my personal views, but there is some handwaving about the process in such a way that reads as if this was all spontaneous involvement on GPTs end. But regardless, a result is a result so I'm content with it.
  - lupsasca 8mo ago
    Hi I am an author of the paper. We believed that a simple formula should exist but had not been able to find it despite significant effort. It was a collaborative effort but GPT definitely solved the problem for us.
hgfda 8mo ago
[dead]
jmalicki 8mo ago
"Grad Student did this". Co-authored by <Famous advisor 1>, <Famous advisor 2>, <Famous advisor 3>. Is this so different?
sejje 8mo ago
The Average Joe reads at an 8th grade level. 21% are illiterate in the US. LLMs surpassed the average human a long time ago IMO. When LLMs fail to measure up to humans, it's that they fail to measure up against human experts in a given field, not the Average Joe. We are surrounded by NPCs.

by emil-lp 8mo ago

famouswaffles 8mo ago

The paper has all those prominent institutions who acknowledge the contribution so realistically, why would you be skeptical ?

kristopolous 8mo ago
they probably also acknowledge pytorch, numpy, R ... but we don't attribute those tools as the agent who did the work. I know we've been primed by sci-fi movies and comic books, but like pytorch, gpt-5.2 is just a piece of software running on a computer instrumented by humans.
- famouswaffles 8mo ago
  I don't see the authors of those libraries getting a credit on the paper, do you ? >I know we've been primed by sci-fi movies and comic books, but like pytorch, gpt-5.2 is just a piece of software running on a computer instrumented by humans. Sure
  - what 8mo ago
    At least one of the authors works for OpenAI. It’s a puff piece.
- name_taken_duh 8mo ago
  And we are just a system running on carbon-based biology in our physics computer run by whomever. What makes us special, to say that we are different than GPT-5.2?
  - palmotea 8mo ago
    > And we are just a system running on carbon-based biology in our physics computer run by whomever. What makes us special, to say that we are different than GPT-5.2? Do you really want to be treated like an old PC (dismembered, stripped for parts, and discarded) when your boss is done with you (i.e. not treated specially compared to a computer system)? But I think if you want a fuller answer, you've got a lot of reading to do. It's not like you're the first person in the world to ask that question.
    - name_taken_duh 8mo ago
      You misunderstood, I am prohumanism. My comment was about challenging the believe that models cant be as intelligent as we are, which cant be answered definitely, though a lot of empirical evidence seems to point to the fact, that we are not fundamentally different intelligence wise. Just closing our eyes will not help in preserving humanism, so we have to shape the world with models in a human friendly way, aka alignment.
  - kristopolous 8mo ago
    It's always a value decision. You can say shiny rocks are more important than people and worth murdering over. Not an uncommon belief. Here you are saying you personally value a computer program more than people It exposes a value that you personally hold and that's it That is separate from the material reality that all this AI stuff is ultimately just computer software... It's an epistemological tautology in the same way that say, a plane, car and refrigerator are all just machines - they can break, need maintenance, take expertise, can be dangerous... LLMs haven't broken the categorical constraints - you've just been primed to think such a thing is supposed to be different through movies and entertainment. I hate to tell you but most movie AIs are just allegories for institutional power. They're narrative devices about how callous and indifferent power structures are to our underlying shared humanity
Refreeze5224 8mo ago
Their point is, would you be able to prompt your way to this result? No. Already trained physicists working at world-leading institutions could. So what progress have we really made here?
- famouswaffles 8mo ago
  It's a stupid point then. Are you able to work with a world leading physicist to any significant degree? No
  - emil-lp 8mo ago
    It's like saying: calculator drives new result in theoretical physics (In the hands of leading experts.)
    - famouswaffles 8mo ago
      No it's not like saying that at all, which is why Open AI have a credit on the paper.
      - not_kurt_godel 8mo ago
        And even if it were, calculators (computers) were world-changing technology when they were new.
      - camdenreslink 8mo ago
        Open AI have a credit on the paper because it is marketing.
        famouswaffles 8mo ago
        Lol Okay
    - Nevermark 8mo ago
      No it’s like saying: New expert drives new results with existing experts. The humans put in significant effort and couldn’t do it. They didn’t then crank it out with some search/match algorithm. They tried a new technology, modeled (literally) on us as reasoners, that is only just being able to reason at their level and it did what they couldn’t. The fact that the experts were a critical context for the model, doesn’t make the models performance any less significant. Collaborators always provide important context for each other.

Sharlin 8mo ago

I'm a big LLM sceptic but that's… moving the goalposts a little too far. How could an average Joe even understand the conjecture enough to write the initial prompt? Or do you mean that experts would give him the prompt to copy-paste, and hope that the proverbial monkey can come up with a Henry V? At the very least posit someone like a grad student in particle physics as the human user.

slopusila 8mo ago
hey, GPT, solve this tough conjecture I've read about on Quanta. make no mistakes
- co_king_3 8mo ago
  [dead]
  - terminalbraid 8mo ago
    "Hey GPT thanks for the result. But is it actually true?"
buttered_toast 8mo ago
I would interpret it as implying that the result was due to a lot more hand-holding that what is let on. Was the initial conjecture based on leading info from the other authors or was it simply the authors presenting all information and asking for a conjecture? Did the authors know that there was a simpler means of expressing the conjecture and lead GPT to its conclusion, or did it spontaneously do so on its own after seeing the hand-written expressions. These aren't my personal views, but there is some handwaving about the process in such a way that reads as if this was all spontaneous involvement on GPTs end. But regardless, a result is a result so I'm content with it.
- lupsasca 8mo ago
  Hi I am an author of the paper. We believed that a simple formula should exist but had not been able to find it despite significant effort. It was a collaborative effort but GPT definitely solved the problem for us.

hgfda 8mo ago

[dead]

jmalicki 8mo ago

"Grad Student did this". Co-authored by <Famous advisor 1>, <Famous advisor 2>, <Famous advisor 3>. Is this so different?

sejje 8mo ago

The Average Joe reads at an 8th grade level. 21% are illiterate in the US. LLMs surpassed the average human a long time ago IMO. When LLMs fail to measure up to humans, it's that they fail to measure up against human experts in a given field, not the Average Joe. We are surrounded by NPCs.