3 ms·
> but I didn't think it'd solve maths problems Finding counterexamples is low-hanging fruit, the automation of which isn't shocking.
by seanw444 1mo ago
> but I didn't think it'd solve maths problems
Finding counterexamples is low-hanging fruit, the automation of which isn't shocking.
- ogogmad 1mo agoWhat about finding the 1st known complex structure over S^6, proving Ehrhart’s volume conjecture, proving a sharp "density" bound on primitive sets conjectured by Erdos >60 years ago? > Finding counterexamples is low-hanging fruit, the automation of which isn't shocking. It's not good to be confidently wrong the way you're being.
- kuschku 1mo agoWe've had mathematical problems solved by brute force in the past. We've then improved that through systems similar to prolog intentionally searching a tree. Then systems added heuristics for which paths in that tree are likely to be taken. The LLMs are just using slightly more accurate heuristics for this task. But the real measure of understanding are tasks that are not so strictly constrained.
- frabcus 1mo agoIf a foundation model company burns billions of tokens to brute force an LLM into finding a new training algorithm that e.g. allows recurrent networks without catastrophic forgetting... I won't really care that it didn't have a "real measure of understanding". I'll care that it has made an even more dangerous technology, which needs work to make it aligned.
- deleted 1mo ago[deleted]
- senordevnyc 1mo agoIt’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s…AI skeptics moving the goalposts at light speed!!
- seanw444 1mo agoBreaking news: a machine can do a tedious repetitive task faster than a human.