3 ms·

As I said before, you still need expert human verifiers to check the solution. But I think you should read the contents of the article first before calling it

by rvz 1mo ago

As I said before, you still need expert human verifiers to check the solution. But I think you should read the contents of the article first before calling it one. Not everything you don't like is a "cult". [0] https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/ https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/

huurtehoog 1mo ago
I'm not talking about OpenAI I'm talking about you > So don't be sad that this 90 year problem was solved, just be happy that is exactly what AGI should be. That sounds like a cult leader.
- rvz 1mo ago
  So an AI model(s) giving a solution to a 90 year problem is not "AGI" to you and maybe you have a different definition of "AGI" (There have been many other definitions which were far more nonsensical before this event.) Then all you can just say to answer the original question, is where you believe the goalpost should be moved to and explain why this is not AGI day.
  - huurtehoog 1mo ago
    AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined. I invite you to add to the literature if you think you have any novel insight, and get it published. Otherwise I'd recommend digging deeper into history, cognitive science, philosophy. That would prevent making any such empty claims as "today is the day artificial general intelligence was created". If otherwise you prefer to be mystified by linear algebra and big computers, I kindly refuse to partake.
    - rvz 1mo ago
      > AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined. Of course they are. The previous definitions were not credible and nonsensical. > I invite you to add to the literature if you think you have any novel insight, and get it published. That has been already done. You might want to start here: [0] - A Definition of AGI Let's read the agreed (Gary Marcus approved) definition together: "AGI is an AI that can match or exceed the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult." What other well-educated adult can claim that they gave a rigorous solution to an unsolved mathematical problem (Millennium Prize problem). One human out of 8 billion can claim that. Now an unreleased AI system has also just done that. I would have expected it to have been instantly dismissed by mathematicians as a flawed proof. But it instead, it has upset them and has them worried, even when they are still needed to verify the proof. > Otherwise I'd recommend digging deeper into history, cognitive science, philosophy. That would prevent making any such empty claims as "today is the day artificial general intelligence was created". If otherwise you prefer to be mystified by linear algebra and big computers, I kindly refuse to partake. This really sounds like cope I'm afraid. Surely you are running out of space to move the goalpost this time. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212
bigyabai 1mo ago
It is specifically your manner of speech that is pretentious and cultlike. If you cannot comment on technological advancement without making hyperbolic claims, why would you even comment at all? Deep down you must know that "Ask HN: Is September 8th AGI Day?" is a plainly bad-faith question that does not stimulate intellectual curiosity and cannot be answered at all. Arbitrarily defining AGI around "exactly what AGI should be" is like what a character from HBO's Silicon Valley would say. Let's hold ourselves to higher standards, at least slightly.

by rvz 1mo ago

huurtehoog 1mo ago

I'm not talking about OpenAI I'm talking about you > So don't be sad that this 90 year problem was solved, just be happy that is exactly what AGI should be. That sounds like a cult leader.

rvz 1mo ago
So an AI model(s) giving a solution to a 90 year problem is not "AGI" to you and maybe you have a different definition of "AGI" (There have been many other definitions which were far more nonsensical before this event.) Then all you can just say to answer the original question, is where you believe the goalpost should be moved to and explain why this is not AGI day.
- huurtehoog 1mo ago
  AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined. I invite you to add to the literature if you think you have any novel insight, and get it published. Otherwise I'd recommend digging deeper into history, cognitive science, philosophy. That would prevent making any such empty claims as "today is the day artificial general intelligence was created". If otherwise you prefer to be mystified by linear algebra and big computers, I kindly refuse to partake.
  - rvz 1mo ago
    > AI, AGI, and intelligence itself are poorly defined. Of course they are. The previous definitions were not credible and nonsensical. > I invite you to add to the literature if you think you have any novel insight, and get it published. That has been already done. You might want to start here: [0] - A Definition of AGI Let's read the agreed (Gary Marcus approved) definition together: "AGI is an AI that can match or exceed the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult." What other well-educated adult can claim that they gave a rigorous solution to an unsolved mathematical problem (Millennium Prize problem). One human out of 8 billion can claim that. Now an unreleased AI system has also just done that. I would have expected it to have been instantly dismissed by mathematicians as a flawed proof. But it instead, it has upset them and has them worried, even when they are still needed to verify the proof. > Otherwise I'd recommend digging deeper into history, cognitive science, philosophy. That would prevent making any such empty claims as "today is the day artificial general intelligence was created". If otherwise you prefer to be mystified by linear algebra and big computers, I kindly refuse to partake. This really sounds like cope I'm afraid. Surely you are running out of space to move the goalpost this time. [0] https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.18212

bigyabai 1mo ago

It is specifically your manner of speech that is pretentious and cultlike. If you cannot comment on technological advancement without making hyperbolic claims, why would you even comment at all? Deep down you must know that "Ask HN: Is September 8th AGI Day?" is a plainly bad-faith question that does not stimulate intellectual curiosity and cannot be answered at all. Arbitrarily defining AGI around "exactly what AGI should be" is like what a character from HBO's Silicon Valley would say. Let's hold ourselves to higher standards, at least slightly.