3 ms·

It's not one-shot. Other people had attempted the same problem w/ the same AI & failed. You're confused about terms so you redefine them to make your version of

It's not one-shot. Other people had attempted the same problem w/ the same AI & failed. You're confused about terms so you redefine them to make your version of the fairy tale real.

fsniper 5mo ago
We already know that same problem has been examined by many credible mathematicians already and couldn't be solved by any of them yet. Why are we expecting AGI to one shot it? Can't we have an AGI that can fails occasionally to solve some math problem? Is the expectation of AGI to be all knowing? By the way I agree that AGI is not around the corner or I am not arguing any of the llm s are "thinking machines". It's just I agree goal post or posts needs to be set well.
- measurablefunc 5mo ago
  People want to believe in magic so they will find excuses to do so. Computers have been proving theorems for a long time now but Isabelle/HOL didn't have the marketing budget of OpenAI so people didn't care. Now that Sam Altman is doing the marketing people all of a sudden care about proving theorems.
  - johnfn 5mo ago
    You are calling something “magic” that actually happened in real life.
    - measurablefunc 5mo ago
      You were misrepresenting what actually happened b/c you want to believe in magic. I'm not calling it magic, I'm saying your interpretation of events is magical b/c you don't actually understand how computers work. There is nothing magical about theorem proving, Isabelle/HOL has been doing it for decades.
      - housecarpenter 5mo ago
        Isabelle/HOL haven't been solving open problems, as far as I'm aware. They've been used for making fully-formal proofs of problems that were already considered proved to a satisfactory level by the mathematical community. I believe mathematicians generally consider proving something to the mathematical community the "hard part", while making it fully formal is just a kind of tedious bookkeeping thing.
  - fsniper 5mo ago
    Isabelle/HOL (a specialized software to do math proofs) doing proofs is not the analogue to LLMs (with the common accepted degeratory description: automated plagiarism machine) being capable of doing proofs. It's not the marketing, it's what the intention and the capability matrix is coming up to. I would be excited the same when Isabelle/HOL writes poetry.
    - measurablefunc 5mo ago
      Like I said, you want to believe in magic & will find any excuse to do so b/c you don't really understand how computers actually work. Good luck.
      - fsniper 5mo ago
        Chemistry is magic to uninitiated. Perhaps LLMs are to you because you are not initiated yet? I never said LLMs are AGI or will ever be AGI. I also never suggested LLMs are perfect and can prove math problems. But having incidents suggesting there are instances that does excites me. Because it was never in my expectation levels.
  - redsocksfan45 5mo ago
    [dead]

It's not one-shot. Other people had attempted the same problem w/ the same AI & failed. You're confused about terms so you redefine them to make your version of the fairy tale real.

fsniper 5mo ago

We already know that same problem has been examined by many credible mathematicians already and couldn't be solved by any of them yet. Why are we expecting AGI to one shot it? Can't we have an AGI that can fails occasionally to solve some math problem? Is the expectation of AGI to be all knowing? By the way I agree that AGI is not around the corner or I am not arguing any of the llm s are "thinking machines". It's just I agree goal post or posts needs to be set well.

measurablefunc 5mo ago
People want to believe in magic so they will find excuses to do so. Computers have been proving theorems for a long time now but Isabelle/HOL didn't have the marketing budget of OpenAI so people didn't care. Now that Sam Altman is doing the marketing people all of a sudden care about proving theorems.
- johnfn 5mo ago
  You are calling something “magic” that actually happened in real life.
  - measurablefunc 5mo ago
    You were misrepresenting what actually happened b/c you want to believe in magic. I'm not calling it magic, I'm saying your interpretation of events is magical b/c you don't actually understand how computers work. There is nothing magical about theorem proving, Isabelle/HOL has been doing it for decades.
    - housecarpenter 5mo ago
      Isabelle/HOL haven't been solving open problems, as far as I'm aware. They've been used for making fully-formal proofs of problems that were already considered proved to a satisfactory level by the mathematical community. I believe mathematicians generally consider proving something to the mathematical community the "hard part", while making it fully formal is just a kind of tedious bookkeeping thing.
- fsniper 5mo ago
  Isabelle/HOL (a specialized software to do math proofs) doing proofs is not the analogue to LLMs (with the common accepted degeratory description: automated plagiarism machine) being capable of doing proofs. It's not the marketing, it's what the intention and the capability matrix is coming up to. I would be excited the same when Isabelle/HOL writes poetry.
  - measurablefunc 5mo ago
    Like I said, you want to believe in magic & will find any excuse to do so b/c you don't really understand how computers actually work. Good luck.
    - fsniper 5mo ago
      Chemistry is magic to uninitiated. Perhaps LLMs are to you because you are not initiated yet? I never said LLMs are AGI or will ever be AGI. I also never suggested LLMs are perfect and can prove math problems. But having incidents suggesting there are instances that does excites me. Because it was never in my expectation levels.
- redsocksfan45 5mo ago
  [dead]