3 ms·
It's a very important clarification if it took $2000/problem on 20 problem attempts or on 1,000 problem attempts for each successful one. That may be the decidi
by traes 2mo ago
It's a very important clarification if it took $2000/problem on 20 problem attempts or on 1,000 problem attempts for each successful one. That may be the deciding factor on whether or not it's economically viable to replace a mathematician with a ChatGPT subscription.
- simianwords 2mo agoYeah fair I concede that this is somewhat crucial information. The parent seems to write it in a tone that suggests deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc.
- esperent 2mo ago> deliberate misleading “lack of transparency” etc It's a marketing post from a huge company. Only the naive would view it uncritically without assuming it's been written carefully to present the results in the best possible light while skirting the boundaries of outright lying.
- dist-epoch 2mo agoThe results speak for themselves. Imagine 2 years from now: "yes, GPT solved the Riemann Hypothesis, but cmon, it's just a marketing stunt to hype their stuff, it was probably Terence Tao doing the work but he's so obsessed with hyping AI that he doesn't want to take credit"
- esperent 2mo agoNobody is claiming the results are false. We're saying look critically at the claims for how it was done, that it only cost $2000, etc. it would be extremely easy to run 100 sessions that failed, each costing ~$2000, and then just publishing an article about the one that succeeded, for example. This goes double since it's an internal secret model (Astra) so nobody else can verify the results.
- simianwords 2mo agoWould this be your reaction if OpenAI also solved millennium problems? The point we are trying to make is that the significance of this news is much larger than the skepticism you are providing.
- esperent 2mo agoIt would be my reaction if we're discussing a blog post from OpenAI, yes. I would be looking at it extremely critically, wondering what they're misrepresenting to make it look cheaper, easier, and why they're trying to make it look like only their model could possibly do this. Look at their recent claims about their model "escaping" - there was literally a Guardian article calling them out for being hyperbolic! Again, it wasn't that they lied, their marketing department is too savvy for that. They just present it in way that's, well, marketing. As for the actual result, I'll look for secondary posts by actual mathematicians and draw my conclusions there, not from this marketing blog post about results from a secret model.
- simianwords 2mo agoHmm. But this level of skepticism looks performative and seems to serve as a signalling thing rather than a functional thing. You do you though. If OpenAI solves the millenial problems, my skepticism will only be restricted to the correctness of proof. Not that it was "marketing" haha
- esperent 2mo ago> looks performative That's one of those phrases you can use to dismiss opposing viewpoints without actually engaging with them.
- mathisfun123 2mo ago> If OpenAI solves the millenial problems, my skepticism will only be restricted to the correctness of proof. Not that it was "marketing" haha Company X does not make money from proving theorems but does make money from selling you a service which supposedly proves theorems. Company X then proves some theorems and explicitly calls out they were very cheap to prove using its service. And you think you're actually clever for taking these facts at face value? Interesting.
- lanstin 2mo agoThere is no universe where it is economically visble to replace a mathematician with a ChatGPT subscription, because no one else understands math. It makes no sense. The data are still interesting, but not for that capability.