3 ms·
but the researchers were also largely relying on AI
by whimsicalism 24d ago
but the researchers were also largely relying on AI
- pphysch 24d agoIn the same way you rely on a keyboard or touchscreen to type this comment. It doesn't mean the tool is the brain behind the work.
- whimsicalism 24d agofrankly don’t know how to reply to these sorts of comments anymore
- pphysch 24d agoThat's usually a good sign you are on shaky ground!
- logancbrown 24d agoObvious false analogy in your earlier argument.
- buellerbueller 24d agoNo so obvious to this guy.
- whimsicalism 24d agoit is truly not obvious to you why keyboard isn’t a good analogy for LLM?
- vouaobrasil 24d agoKeyboards don't suggest chains of reasoning or words to type. When I press the K key, I know exactly what will happen. It's just a translation layer that gives an output known ahead of time and thus does not impinge upon the creativity of putting words together. A better example would be playing chess against a player slightly stronger than me and using a chess computer to suggest some good moves. I could win, but it certianly wouldn't be just my brain that wins. It would be an amalgamation of my brain with a machine that suggests good moves. One cannot simply reason by analogy.
- visarga 24d ago> Keyboards don't suggest chains of reasoning or words to type My iPhone keyboard does
- vouaobrasil 23d agoI was talking about regular old keyboards. But you're just being pedantic.
- pphysch 24d agoThis is straight up misleading. When you press your K key on a touchscreen, your keyboard program may decide you meant to press the neighboring L key (by dynamically inflating the collision geometry on it) because it was statistically far more likely that you meant to press the L key next. This likely doesn't happen exactly on an analog keyboard, but then many text-processing environments that do the same thing in post. My keyboard just edited 'yuor' to 'your' even though I successfully input the prior string.
- Romario77 24d agothat's not how AI was used in this case. It's more like a professor with assistants. Professor says the assistants - why don't you dig in this direction, I have a hunch it might produce something valuable. And AI assistant does just that, proving or disproving a hunch. This would take the professor a lot of time if doing by themselves.
- pphysch 24d agoYes, and keyboards also save a lot of time over handwriting. Numerical methods and proof engines save even more time. LLMs are just another tool in the kit.
- cmiles8 24d ago“relying on” is misleading here relative to what the researchers have said. If I write a book and pass it through a spelling and polish checker, I still wrote the book and its core IP. I didn’t “rely on” the tool to create the IP.
- whimsicalism 24d agoit’s much more like you come up with the premise and someone else writes the book. the released prompts for other foundational problems (like unit distance) prove that.
- vouaobrasil 24d agoThe tools the researchers used though was much more than an spellchecker, because spellcheckers don't come up with chains of reasoning for the arguments in the book. The LLMs did in the case of the Navier-Stokes problem.
- vonneumannstan 24d agoIf this were the case the problem would not have remained unsolved for this long. A new spell checker is not what cracked the problem.
- hunterpayne 24d agoThe researchers were driving prompts and trying to actually do math. The OpenAI effort was a pure brute force attempt. I'm not even sure an LLM was actually involved. I think they just used their hardware to run the matrix multiplies required by the search for a counter example. Perhaps some clever approach guided the search but that seems to be about it.