nybsjytm

7 ms·

31.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Tao is famous for being the world's most singular and inspiring genius. It's kind of a meme position* that most people accept because they think everyone else accepts it, but for people of a certain inclination, it makes anything
32.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> If arguably the person with the highest IQ currently living, is impressed but still not fully satisfied that a computer doesn’t give Nobel prize winning mathematical reasoning No offense, but every part of this characterization is real
33.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> ‘Able to make the same creative mathematical leaps as Terence Tao’ seems like a pretty high bar to be setting for AI. There's no need to try to infer this kind of high bar, because what he says is actually very specific and concre
34.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
The issue is that a hypothetical answer from a LLM is not even remotely easy to directly put into lean. You might ask the LLM to give you an answer together with a lean formalization, but the issue is that this kind of 'autoformalizati
35.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
If Tao says he's interested in something being coded in lean, there are literal teams of people who will throw themselves at him. Those projects are very well organized from the top down by people who know what they're doing, it&#
36.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
To code proofs in lean, you have to understand the proof very well. It doesn't seem to be very reasonable for someone learning material for the first time.
37.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Daniel Litt, an algebraic geometer on twitter, said "Pretty impressed by o1-preview! Still not having much luck asking it to do any interesting math but it seems much more reliable with simple things; I can actually imagine it being a
38.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Good luck! That can be pretty hard to do when you're at the learning stage, and I would think doubly so given the LLM style where everything 'looks' very convincing.
39.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Does it matter that, like so much in the Math for AI sphere, core details seem to be totally bungled? e.g. see various comments in this thread https://x.com/waltonstevenj/status/1834327595862950207
40.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
How will you know if its answers are correct or not?
41.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
No, I don't mean that the search space is small. I just mean that there are special techniques which are highly relevant for IMO-type problems. It'd be interesting to know how important that knowledge was for the design and traini
42.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
To what extent is the training and structure of AlphaProof tailored specifically to IMO-type problems, which typically have short solutions using combinations of a small handful of specific techniques? (It's not my main point, but it&#
43.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Ok. Thanks for the contribution.
44.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Thank you for this AI slop. It's the right answer but incoherent reasoning. It could have equally reasonably said: "The one that doesn't fit in is Socrates. Richard Feynman and Bill Gates are primarily known for their contrib
45.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> I would venture most industries, with foundations on other research fields, are likely the same. "Industries" is a key word though. Academic research, though hardly without its own major problems, doesn't have the same s
46.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
I think you've misread this conversation. I was responding to someone who suggested that Karpathy's "background in physics" indicated some insight into whether this venture, particularly as regards physics education, wil
47.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
It's legitimate to call it a background in physics, but given the particular level of background and the context of this particular issue, its relevance is indistinguishable from zero. Has he ever demonstrated any particular insight or
48.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
As far as I can see there are pretty much zero incentives in the AI research arena for being careful or intellectually rigorous, or being at all cautious in proclaiming success (or imminent success), with industry incentives having well inv
49.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> Feynman, Bill Gates, Socrates, etc. One of these doesn't quite belong ;) But these AI researchers don't even understand these figures except as advertising reference points. The Socratic dialogue in the "sparks of AGI&qu
50.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
My point is that he's a world expert on the engineering of AI systems. That shouldn't be mistaken for expertise, or even general knowledge, about anything else. It's a good principle to bear in mind for people from any profes
51.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> As Andrej has a background in physics This seems rather generous given that he was just a physics major. There's lots of physics majors who understand very little about physics and, crucially, nothing about physics education.
52.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> ... in the case of physics one could imagine working through very high quality course materials together with Feynman ... with recent progress in generative AI, this learning experience feels tractable. Actually, this seems to be absur
53.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
I can also make a prediction for every single known protein, it's trivial to do. My own predictions would be uniformly wrong. The question is how accurate AlphaFold's predictions are - of course, this question was almost totally a
54.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
I wouldn't worry, I think what you're saying is pretty well known. We've all heard it before from every tech evangelist out there. Everyone knows that sometimes tech naysayers turn out to be wrong; the point is that it's
55.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> I think this movement around 'debunking AI' is entirely the fault of marketing and company CEOs inflating the potential around generative AI to such ridiculous amounts. I don't think you should let the AI research commun
56.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> If someone's AI tech does end up "changing the future" then how would you not be incorrect if you had previously said it was vaporware? "This product is vaporware" doesn't mean "This product is imposs
57.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> They literally solved protein folding with AI AlphaFold deserves some hype but this is a tremendous overstatement.
58.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Right now, as stated, the "Yang" side as applied to AI is clearly true. Even if the tech will "change the future" it will be no less correct for us to say that current AI products are overhyped/vaporware and that AI
59.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
Just for balance, here's 84 examples of the opposite: https://www.theverge.com/2019/12/20/21029499/decade-fails-fl...
60.
by nybsjytm 2y ago
> to me this feels applicable to a lot of things that have gone on to be revolutionary. The big issue is that it's also applicable to a lot of other things.

More ›