4 ms·

Yeah 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”

Yeah 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 3mo 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 3mo ago
  The 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 3mo ago
    Nobody 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 3mo ago
      Would 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 3mo ago
        It 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 3mo ago
        Hmm. 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 3mo ago
        > looks performative That's one of those phrases you can use to dismiss opposing viewpoints without actually engaging with them.
        mathisfun123 3mo 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.
        simianwords 3mo ago

Yeah 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 3mo 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 3mo ago
The 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 3mo ago
  Nobody 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 3mo ago
    Would 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 3mo ago
      It 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 3mo ago
        Hmm. 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 3mo ago
        > looks performative That's one of those phrases you can use to dismiss opposing viewpoints without actually engaging with them.
        mathisfun123 3mo 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.
        simianwords 3mo ago