33 ms·
>Whilst current models can't 'intuit That's how they are finding these solutions though, unless we are just going to label intuition as something only humans c
by WarmWash 3mo ago
>Whilst current models can't 'intuit
That's how they are finding these solutions though, unless we are just going to label intuition as something only humans can do. Like a submarine being unable to swim or whatever that example is.
- rirze 3mo ago> "matrices"
- fasterik 3mo agoSaying that AI is "matrices" is like saying human cognition is "neurons." Maybe true at some level, but it's a low-level implementation detail. The important part of a language model is the function that maps tokens to contextual embeddings. You could compute this function using analog computing, biological neurons, or any other substrate.
- watutalkinbout 3mo agoIt isn't an implementation for neurons, unless you believe in a designing god. Matrices are an implementation detail in reconstructing the surface of human knowledge. It's a complex surface, but it's a regurgitation.
- aswegs8 3mo agoWhat's the argument here? It's not about the implementation method, it is about the behavior that emerges from it. You could calculate the next token by hand on paper if you had enough time.
- alberto-m 3mo agoIt's incredible how the “Chinese Room” argument, as well as its counterarguments, is still incredibly pertinent despite being now more than 40 years old. Scientific American published many articles on this topic in the Eighties; they seem as fresh as ever.
- watutalkinbout 3mo agoYep, it's a facsimile of a filtered subset of all human behaviour.
- robotpepi 3mo agoit could also be that they try every possible approach that has been proposed by humans. it seems that was the case for the non sofic group example. humans are not able to do the same at that scale. it's unfortunate that we don't know what's happening behind the hood with these models, and that's a huge danger also for the rest of us without access to them.
- sdenton4 3mo agoSome of them... The two places were seeing lots of movement are: * Updates to lower/upper bounds. In many cases, these kinds of problems are the deep-math equivalent of calculating more digits of pi. Yes, if you throw time at it you'll break the record, but it may not be terribly worthwhile. * Finding counter examples which disprove conjectures. This is really useful, and helps offset some positivity bias on the human side, often bringing together known tools from distant silos. If you read the list of ten results, almost all fall into one of these buckets.
- pama 3mo agoIt is unfair to dismiss contributions to decades old open problems as equivalent to calculating more digits of pi. It missed the mark by a lot—as does the two bucket simplifaction.
- denismenace 3mo agoHow does calculating more digits of pi help us?
- sdenton4 3mo agoFive (maybe six?) of the results are improvements on bounds. These kinds of problems tend to have some initial advances, and then stall out as the complexity of the bound skyrockets... until some grad student is bored enough to push the boundary. The big-O complexity of matrix multiplication is a good example of how this works: yeah, it's a useful problem, but the solutions are galactic algorithms, and increasingly convoluted. As someone with a PhD in combinatorics, I believe that I'm qualified to say that, yes, there are problems as useless as calculating more digits of pi.
- pama 3mo agoYour inverted logic does not hold. The fact that such useless problems for bounds exist does not mean that improving bounds is useless. 9 fields medals in the last twenty years, including the one to Terrence Tao, were for improvements on bounds. 3 of the 4 medals in 2022 were for bounds; 2 of these medals were in combinatorics.