robotpepi

5 ms·

31.
by robotpepi 26d ago
> Keep in mind employees at AI companies are publicly stating that they believe they're risking a >10% chance of human extinction. Are we really going to take what they say in public seriously?
32.
by robotpepi 26d ago
> Let's assume in the next decade GPT-7 PRO Ultra is cheaply ubiquitous, inspectable, reproducible, transferable, reasonably un-constrained by any institutional interests. I'd argue that this extremely extreme scenario is the o
33.
by robotpepi 26d ago
I don't see any meaningful analogy with your cites of Baudelaire. First of all, Baudelaire discusses art, which is very different to science. Several new forms of art have emerged, and then slowly integrated, despite the strong opinion
34.
by robotpepi 26d ago
It makes no sense to compare mathematics with chess. Chess is a sport. No one is interested in watching two machines compete. Chess doesn't have a practical impact. Etc. What you seem to suggest is that AI will be able to completely (o
35.
by robotpepi 26d ago
> But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive. you completely misunderstood the critics. your analogy is awful. this is much closer to the industrial revolution in the uk: it brought a lot of progr
36.
by robotpepi 26d ago
I really hate this overly condescending takes. First of all, what do you know about the internals of math research that allows you to speak with so much confidence. Second, you're not even addressing the issues raised by the letter! Th
37.
by robotpepi 26d ago
> It's not obvious to me that's an unethical thing to do, if it happened as they described. What!? Even if everything OpenAI said is accurate (big hypothesis there!), it's highly unethical to rush a solution because others
38.
by robotpepi 26d ago
> if this were true, it should be stated more clearly stated more clearly by who? people in social media? I don't know what your feed shows you, but if you focus on what the visible people in the math community is (and have been) sa
39.
by robotpepi 27d ago
> but right now there's no credible evidence, only claims. since it's openAI who has the evidence (in the form of chain of thoughts, their internal processes, etc etc), it's on them to justify why they're innocent. bu
40.
by robotpepi 27d ago
> We are scared of AI being smarter than us, the "human helped the AI" narrative is more psychologically comforting. We're scared of big tech companies concentrating ridiculous amounts of power, destroying the communities
41.
by robotpepi 27d ago
> They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it. Yeah, the guys who solved it for Euler and in the hypoviscous case, with the same technique that worked for full Navier--Stokes. They were "just&quot
42.
by robotpepi 27d ago
It's in OpenAI's first announcement that they had solved the problem.
43.
by robotpepi 28d ago
> Solving a major maths problem that has resisted the best mathematicians for so long seems to prove otherwise (even if it were just a matter of remixing old ideas, which is not the case here). I don't think we know enough about how
44.
by robotpepi 28d ago
I was referring mostly to > This proof is just checking the boxes for mathematicians There are already quite a lot of summaries of the story that lead to the solution, and the impact that the intermediate results have had.
45.
by robotpepi 28d ago
I was referring to the "it's just mathematicians checking boxes" claim
46.
by robotpepi 28d ago
fair enough
47.
by robotpepi 28d ago
you're as sure of what you say as wrong about it.
48.
by robotpepi 29d ago
> Because very few people actually have access to these logs, all access is monitored and recorded, and improper access will get you fired. It's not worth risking your job over something like this. That's beyond naive. The mone
49.
by robotpepi 1mo ago
> just more user friendly language you try to justify it in a logical way, but you fail to realize that this is inherently subjective
50.
by robotpepi 1mo ago
> 2) 'taking responsibility' is not 'vacuous corporate speak' - that's a terribly cynical view. It's literally the case - the leader takes respnosbility because they failed to set the conditions for the good
51.
by robotpepi 1mo ago
that's something a human needs to do, and it's non trivial, but it's a simple task compared to checking the correctness of the proof. in any case, most of the language is probably already defined in Lean and checked independe
52.
by robotpepi 1mo ago
you're missing the point...
53.
by robotpepi 1mo ago
> reduce the burden of refereeing new work. As a professional mathematician, I rarely need to worry about the correctness of a paper. The main difficulty of writing a review is instead understanding what the results of the paper mean in
54.
by robotpepi 1mo ago
there's less corruption than in the US nowadays.
55.
by robotpepi 1mo ago
that's precisely what the post says under the title.
56.
by robotpepi 2mo ago
> while remaining at the top. isn't the linked post precisely an example of the opposite?
57.
by robotpepi 2mo ago
Tao is a good example of a (extremely good) problem solver that doesn't build theory.
58.
by robotpepi 2mo ago
do we have any concrete idea of how well the models are scaling now? I agree with these 10 results being impressive, and it is easy to think "wow, and last year the models were barely able to solve IMOs problems". But for me it is
59.
by robotpepi 2mo ago
> but proving a group was non-sofic was out of reach a colleague was telling me that the base idea for proving that something is not sofic already appeared in the literature around 2019 or so (this is the "expanders graphs" tha
60.
by robotpepi 2mo ago
it could also be that they try every possible approach that has been proposed by humans. it seems that was the case for the non sofic group example. humans are not able to do the same at that scale. it's unfortunate that we don't

More ›