4 ms·
I don’t think solving a millennium prize problem can be reduced to some DoorDash economics of “spent Y to make X.” What if it took someone their entire professi
by jacobrussell 22d ago
I don’t think solving a millennium prize problem can be reduced to some DoorDash economics of “spent Y to make X.” What if it took someone their entire professional career to solve one of these problems, would it not be worth it by the same logic?
- jgalt212 22d agoOf course, you're right. I was making social commentary / joke.
- program_whiz 22d agoSurprisingly this is actually rather fitting in terms of time scale. When you consider it took ~10,000 agents 88 hours, or 880,000 hours to solve. That's 14.5 years in agent time of continuous 365/24/7 processing. Of course, humans solve things much more efficiently (and didn't also need the massive pre-training of every expert on the planet for 1,000,000,000 human years equivalent). But yeah, human researchers can solve a problem like this in a decade or so, while sleeping, teaching, traveling, and taking breaks, only working a few hours a day on the idea.
- nomel 22d agoHow many people have worked on this problem? How many have failed? How many hours total?
- taneq 22d ago> But yeah, human researchers can solve a problem like this in a decade or so None of them did, though, despite how many tried. So empirically, it seems unreasonable to say human researchers can solve ‘problems like this’.
- eru 22d agoWell, I guess we can say that human researchers have a certain probability of solving problems like this?
- program_whiz 18d agoThe entire controversy was that researchers were about to release their proof which OpenAI claimed to simultaneosululy discover. The proof is the researchers in question.