famouswaffles

14 ms·

31.
by famouswaffles 29d ago
>What happened was mathematicians at openAI learned of an imminent development on this problem, and the insight that it entailed, then they were able to prompt a system in the correct direction and spend 20 million dollars to write down
32.
by famouswaffles 29d ago
LLMs (and Humans) don't get really good from programming books lol. The training and practice is the actual code they predict and learn from in the process of predicting.
33.
by famouswaffles 29d ago
If all you do is read chess books, you'll be a shit player. Training and practice is what it takes to be great.
34.
by famouswaffles 29d ago
If humans were actually intelligent, they wouldn't need to train and practice to play good chess. I mean, what level do you think people without any practice or training are ?
35.
by famouswaffles 29d ago
Frontier labs don't care about chess. If OpenAI cared, GPT-7 could be a grandmaster+ level chess player. In fact there's a google paper on grandmaster level chess without search with a 270M transformer. Outside that, there was gpt
36.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
Enterprises have loyalty, but an obvious step-change in ability will sway. No, i don't think open source will zoom past the frontier (the necessary step change) just because they put the brakes on. Like i said, there's a reason Op
37.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
1. Mainstream users don't care about benchmarks or whether some open weight model has technically surpassed GPT-X on a leaderboard. They care about whther GPT does what they want it to do. Capable Open source models already exist, and
38.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>Humanity is about to enter the phase when we will be using things based on ideas no human ever properly understands. This thought … disturbing, somehow? This is just normal though. We were building sophisticated bronze and steel tools l
39.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>If they stop racing, the wave of open models will pass them and their inference margins will drop to zero. 1. ChatGPT's ~billion weekly active users aren't going to give a shit about some open source model, and neither would m
40.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
New models are constantly being trained, but they don't have to be constanatly trained. If OpenAI or Anthropic 'just' wanted to be a profitable business, they could ease up on that, but they're both racing to create a ma
41.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
Please stop abusing the term 'brute-force'. This is not brute force. Rarely is there a non trivial problem you can sove in one master stroke.
42.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>But an LLM has no mind to feel bad if it cheats without getting caught All the interpretability research we have would not indicate that "LLMs have no mind". It seems to me you have a conclusion and are working backwards to ju
43.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
If humans didn't need whack-a-mole alignment, the law system wouldn't exist, so i guess there's no intelligence there either.
44.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
It's solved in that we have had grossly superhuman capabilities for some time. It's not interesting for frontier labs. I suspect you understand this and the greater point so why be needlessly pedantic ?
45.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
Right but we're talking about a single subject here - mathematics that labs are incentivized to keep improving for some time. >e.g. If someone said "this is the worst they'll ever be" in response to some writing with
46.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
It doesn't ring true and it never rang true. He was wrong in 2022 and he'd be wrong today. He had (and likely still has) a wrong model of LLMs. Not exaggerating 2022 capabilities and having a model so wrong you're out of whac
47.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>I suppose you are suggesting that research mathematicians are either over-qualified mathematically and/or under-qualified in ability to teach, but it seems pretty clear that universities prefer to hire domain experts whose reputati
48.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>Most research mathematicians are employed as academics, and it's hard to see universities replacing teaching staff with AI even if that were possible. If universities come to only need research mathematicians for teaching ability,
49.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>Nah the AI won't replace coders or mathematicians until it can maintain codebases/knowledge long term. Okay...you understand that are training for this and it has gotten much much better at doing this over the years ? You shou
50.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
If you're in OpenAI's position, the PR from the group you're disrupting is rarely relevant. People from the outside will (correctly or not) look at this as "Mathematicians don't want OpenAI to solve problems to keep
51.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
They aren't going to sit on millenium solutions regardless (so if Hodge and /or BSD is really done it will get announced especially because of the baseless accusations), and they aren't going to stop trying to solve P/NP
52.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
I mean if it's impossible to prove then the bet is still valid right ? The Clay institute won't be giving out any prize still in that case.
53.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
None of the frontier labs care about Chess as it's already a solved problem. If they did, the models would be much better. It's really not that hard. Google has a paper on grandmaster level chess without search from transformers.
54.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
Yes. This is the worst the models will ever be. Perhaps you should start paying attention to that now.
55.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
It's really not that big. Yeah Navier-Stokes was easier than Riemann but that's not really the issue. AI has and will improve at a much greater rate than human mathematicians. So it's really a question of if AI gets good enou
56.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>That said, that’s probably just because of the drama miring their most recent one. After 2 I don’t see why they’d bother anymore. P/NP and the Riemann Hypothesis are part of the milllenium problems. They will 100% keep trying to cr
57.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
They aren't going to stop at one, that's for sure. They already claimed they have "made substantial progress" on another millenium problem. Let's say they bag another one (Hodge and/or BSD according to the rumo
58.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>Are you implying that OpenAI using someones unpublished research without their permission to solve an career defining math problem Good thing they never did that then
59.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
Fair enough then. I had only seen some earlier comments.
60.
by famouswaffles 1mo ago
>If you read the PDF release by Buckmaster, apparently the initial claim from Brubeck was that there as very little human input involved, then as the call progressed more and more people popped up that has been involved with it. As it se

More ›