3 ms·

I think the author is not aware of how much the Millennium Prize proof was actually driven by a human working for years towards that problem. The AI did not sol

I think the author is not aware of how much the Millennium Prize proof was actually driven by a human working for years towards that problem. The AI did not solve this on its own. A world class mathematician prompted it towards the proof. In my view, this is still a human achievement, not an AI achievement. If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer? If the AI really did get the Millennium Prize, then why can't you get a Millennium Prize when you have access to the exact same model in ChatGPT?

matteoraso 22d ago
This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data" thing, modern AI can make their own math data to train on with RLVF. This new model is legitimately on a different plane of existence from modern mathematicians.
- unrented7977 22d ago
  Using the word "copium" is a "if you smelt it you dealt it" type of deal.
- imjonse 22d ago
  it should be able to solve some of the five left Millenium Prize problems then in a few weeks.
  - scotty79 22d ago
    Why in weeks, not months or years?
  - weatherlite 22d ago
    Probably will solve a couple more at least in the coming year , no ? Why wouldn't it ?
- znnajdla 22d ago
  My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you think it was the AI that did it, you have access to the exact same ChatGPT.
  - matteoraso 22d ago
    I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".
    - znnajdla 21d ago
      I think you're not aware of the specifics of this case. A mathematician worked on the prompts for over a year to get this proof. Look up the details.
  - arw0n 21d ago
    We don't know what the prompts were though. Terence Tao showed of some of his, and they are indeed huge, with lots of context, things that might work, things he knows don't etc. What we do know about this, is that 10k agents worked together on this. The initial prompt, while probably still very relevant, would get diluted over time. We simply don't know the level of inolvement of humans in reaching this proof.
    - znnajdla 21d ago
      My point is if you're not a mathematician on the level of Terence Tao you wouldn't have been able to get this result. Thus, AI cannot be credited with the result. Because it's not AI that did it, it's the human that used it as a tool to get the result.
atleastoptimal 22d ago
You could say that about every scientific/mathematical breakthrough. Einstein's Special relativity depended heavily on Lorentz's work, the Michelson-Morley experiments, Maxwell's equations. Grigori Perelman, the only person to have solved a Millenium Prize problem, noted how his work was only possible due to Richard S. Hamilton's work on Ricci flow. Most scientific breakthroughs are just the completing the last 5% of work already done, but that last 5% is very hard and still only happens very rarely. That an AI was able to synthesize all the work and bring it forward is evidence that AI can make novel progress on the same level as renown mathematicians.
- deleted 22d ago
  [deleted]
- LogicFailsMe 22d ago
  Einstein literally stated he was not influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiments, but it's a common myth that he was. "When Ι asked him how he had learned of the Michelson Morley experiment, he told me that he had become aware of it through writings of Η. Α. Lοrentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention! "Otherwise" he said, "I would have mentioned it in my paper!" indeed, Einstein's 1905 paper contains no mention of Μichelson's experiment or references to Lorentz's papers." From https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89375/did-einstein-know-about-the-michelson-morley-experiment https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89375/did-einste... Correcting a professor at MIT (head of the department alas) on this erroneous belief during a grad school interview cost me admission as he insisted otherwise and wouldn't back down. Ironically, one of my college professors was interviewed on NPR a week later and confirmed what I had stated. Ask me what I think of checked out, tenured academics. Go ahead...
  - atleastoptimal 22d ago
    That may be true, but Lorentz specifically cited the MM experiments and was influenced by them, and Einstein cited and was influenced by Lorentz, so he was influenced, just one level removed. >https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-663-19510-8_1 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-663-19510-8_...
butlike 22d ago
> If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer? Unequivocally the bulldozer. You get to take the blame in design of the bulldozer, though.
- etatoby 22d ago
  The law (which is supposed to codify the common sense and shared values underpinning a society—note "supposed to") disagrees with you: if I use a bulldozer to damage your property, you can sue me, not the bulldozer or its maker.
  - dwaltrip 22d ago
    Sure, legally. But practically speaking, who did the heavy lifting? The operator or the machine?
    - lolakutty 22d ago
      Everyone who's ideas made bulldozer possible, I would say..
borzi 22d ago
No, no, you don't get it - soon Joe Sixpack will be prompting AGI "solve me {super difficult problem researchers couldn't solved for centuries}" and releasing their own research papers!

matteoraso 22d ago

This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data" thing, modern AI can make their own math data to train on with RLVF. This new model is legitimately on a different plane of existence from modern mathematicians.

unrented7977 22d ago
Using the word "copium" is a "if you smelt it you dealt it" type of deal.
imjonse 22d ago
it should be able to solve some of the five left Millenium Prize problems then in a few weeks.
- scotty79 22d ago
  Why in weeks, not months or years?
- weatherlite 22d ago
  Probably will solve a couple more at least in the coming year , no ? Why wouldn't it ?
znnajdla 22d ago
My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you think it was the AI that did it, you have access to the exact same ChatGPT.
- matteoraso 22d ago
  I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".
  - znnajdla 21d ago
    I think you're not aware of the specifics of this case. A mathematician worked on the prompts for over a year to get this proof. Look up the details.
- arw0n 21d ago
  We don't know what the prompts were though. Terence Tao showed of some of his, and they are indeed huge, with lots of context, things that might work, things he knows don't etc. What we do know about this, is that 10k agents worked together on this. The initial prompt, while probably still very relevant, would get diluted over time. We simply don't know the level of inolvement of humans in reaching this proof.
  - znnajdla 21d ago
    My point is if you're not a mathematician on the level of Terence Tao you wouldn't have been able to get this result. Thus, AI cannot be credited with the result. Because it's not AI that did it, it's the human that used it as a tool to get the result.

atleastoptimal 22d ago

You could say that about every scientific/mathematical breakthrough. Einstein's Special relativity depended heavily on Lorentz's work, the Michelson-Morley experiments, Maxwell's equations. Grigori Perelman, the only person to have solved a Millenium Prize problem, noted how his work was only possible due to Richard S. Hamilton's work on Ricci flow. Most scientific breakthroughs are just the completing the last 5% of work already done, but that last 5% is very hard and still only happens very rarely. That an AI was able to synthesize all the work and bring it forward is evidence that AI can make novel progress on the same level as renown mathematicians.

deleted 22d ago
[deleted]
LogicFailsMe 22d ago
Einstein literally stated he was not influenced by the Michelson-Morley experiments, but it's a common myth that he was. "When Ι asked him how he had learned of the Michelson Morley experiment, he told me that he had become aware of it through writings of Η. Α. Lοrentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention! "Otherwise" he said, "I would have mentioned it in my paper!" indeed, Einstein's 1905 paper contains no mention of Μichelson's experiment or references to Lorentz's papers." From https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89375/did-einstein-know-about-the-michelson-morley-experiment https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/89375/did-einste... Correcting a professor at MIT (head of the department alas) on this erroneous belief during a grad school interview cost me admission as he insisted otherwise and wouldn't back down. Ironically, one of my college professors was interviewed on NPR a week later and confirmed what I had stated. Ask me what I think of checked out, tenured academics. Go ahead...
- atleastoptimal 22d ago
  That may be true, but Lorentz specifically cited the MM experiments and was influenced by them, and Einstein cited and was influenced by Lorentz, so he was influenced, just one level removed. >https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-663-19510-8_1 https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-663-19510-8_...

butlike 22d ago

> If I design a bulldozer to push a five ton rock, did I push the rock or the bulldozer? Unequivocally the bulldozer. You get to take the blame in design of the bulldozer, though.

etatoby 22d ago
The law (which is supposed to codify the common sense and shared values underpinning a society—note "supposed to") disagrees with you: if I use a bulldozer to damage your property, you can sue me, not the bulldozer or its maker.
- dwaltrip 22d ago
  Sure, legally. But practically speaking, who did the heavy lifting? The operator or the machine?
  - lolakutty 22d ago
    Everyone who's ideas made bulldozer possible, I would say..

borzi 22d ago

No, no, you don't get it - soon Joe Sixpack will be prompting AGI "solve me {super difficult problem researchers couldn't solved for centuries}" and releasing their own research papers!