3 ms·
A week ago there was an artical about Donald Knuth asking an ai to prove something then unproved and it found the proof. I suppose it is possible that the great
by bluGill 8mo ago
A week ago there was an artical about Donald Knuth asking an ai to prove something then unproved and it found the proof. I suppose it is possible that the great Knuth didn't know how to find this existing truth - but there is a reason we all doubted it (including me when I mentioned it there)
i have never written a c compiler yet I would bet money if you paid me to write one (it would take a few years at least) it wouldn't have any innovations as the space is already well covered. Where I'm different from other compilers is more likely a case of I did something stupid that someone who knows how to write a compiler wouldn't.
- lateforwork 8mo ago> as the space is already well covered The US patent commissioner in 1899 wanted to shutdown the patent office because "everything that can be invented has been invented." And yet, human ingenuity keeps proving otherwise.
- bluGill 8mo agoThere are lots of small innovations left. Only a few patents have ever been for revolutions. Small innovaions add up to big things.
- appletrotter 8mo agoThis is apocraphyl :(
- 3836293648 8mo agoYou could probably do it in a few days, C is not that hard to compile
- lateforwork 8mo agoRight, and that was a design goal of C language... to be close to the machine.
- 3836293648 8mo agoYes, and I was responding to > it would take a few years at least
- bluGill 8mo agoClaude built an optimizer as well. (Not a great one) that takes a lot more. Yes I could lively brute force a C compiler that works much faster.
- red75prime 8mo agoAnd a few seconds more to write a stub `stdio.h` that will allow to compile at least helloworld. Writing a compiler that can compile the Linux kernel is a bit more involved.
- imtringued 8mo agoFamous last words.
- coffeefirst 8mo agoSo I would like to know how it found the proof. Because it’s much more likely to have been plucked from an obscure record where the author didn’t realize this was special than to have been estimated on the fly. This makes LLMs incredibly powerful research tools, which can create the illusion of emergent capabilities.
- my-next-account 8mo agoHere's the PDF: https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cycles.pdf https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cyc... It wasn't Knuth who used Claude, but his friend. Nevertheless, Knuth was quite impressed.
- deleted 8mo ago[deleted]
- internet_points 8mo agoIf you read https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cycles.pdf https://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cyc... it was more of a guided effort to write a program to find examples that helped with moving the proof along
- tehlike 8mo agoC# back in 2000-2007 had a bunch of innovations. I expect we will have more.
- patrickmay 8mo agoI'd bet if you read the Dragon book (yes, I'm dating myself) you'd have something working in less than three months. More importantly, you would understand every bit of it.
- bluGill 8mo agoProbably. I know what book you mean and never tried to read it. As I noted elsewhere I could probably brute force something in a week without reading the book. However the ai tried to be better than just a basic translator and that takes more time and exberience than I have.
- genthree 8mo agoI don't see any reason to doubt that plausible-next-token-guessing could sometimes plausibly-next-guess a sequence that happens to decode to the answer to some question we'd not yet solved. ... it'd be even more likely if, as other have suggested in this thread, we actually had recorded the answer in writing but nobody had noticed it yet, say, but even without that I don't see why it couldn't happen.