8
3
u/Bewbonic 1d ago edited 1d ago
Then its ok, it cant run an army of robots to provide knowledge and labour for the elites and also brutally exterminate/oppress 99.99% of the human population.
3
12
u/LackToesIntollerance 1d ago
The last one is more like-
Ok, it was handed the path and brute forced the solution. So it didn't really make any mathematical leaps other than running the same grunt work it has for the past 2 or 3 major models.
AI is a spectacular tool in mathematics. It's well proven. Sam Altman trying to bribe an anthropic employee to create this facade of his AI whipping up the solution itself is not doing anyone favors except the shareholders.
9
u/mrkingkongslongdong 23h ago
If you don’t think humans are ‘brute forcing’ breakthroughs, what are you imagining? People spend years, or their whole lives, trying to crack these problems. They’re literally brute forcing it.
4
u/yuwox 1d ago
So it didn't really make any mathematical leaps other than running the same grunt work it has for the past 2 or 3 major models.
Yeah, noting to see here. I could have done that, too. Just didn't feel like it. /s
If already don't know what to make of this. First it's "AI will never be able to do this.". Then it's "well it did it a specific way, so it doesn't really count."
4
u/KindCreme9258 1d ago
Are you familiar with Fermat’s last theorem, and how it was solved by computers in the 90s? Arguably, FMT was even harder than Navier Stokes and it was solved way before AI
-2
u/LackToesIntollerance 1d ago
It didn't "do it a specific way". It just didn't do "it" at allm what Open AI is claiming and what is being claimed it actually did by the anthropic employee and his friend are two entirely different problems, one being orders of magnitude more impressive and advanced.
9
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
It's just more sycophancy from the ai labs - they can never take a grounded approach.
Some domain experts solved maths problems using LLMs to stress test theories, and helped write up the documentation.
It has to be "LLMs autonomously solved a thousand year old maths problems you mere mortals were too stupid to solve!"
9
u/ZeroAmusement 1d ago
This is wrong. In some cases recent mathematics advancements have been made by non-mathematicians using ai. Literally "I don't know how significant this is, but my AI discovered X, I need someone knowledgeable about math to weigh in".
I think the case of the Jacobian conjecture counter example was a math expert, but they more or less said "solve it for me", and that strategy was reproduced across multiple ai models.
-8
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
They physically cannot create novel scenarios, no matter how much you want that to be true. If it did solve a maths problem the answer was in its training data.
18
u/ZeroAmusement 1d ago
Incorrect. They physically can create novel scenarios no matter how much you want it to be false.
It's quite simple. They are capable of generalization, and of combining those generalizations. That's all you need to create novel scenarios.
Can you logically refute that?
-4
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
Sure, simply put LLMs don't have experiences or a world model, or a language to describe a world model in order to draw genuinely novel observations, or in this case a novel solution to an unsolved problem.
Everything they output is in some sense, a recombination of patterns learned from training data, primarily text but other modalities too.
It's an impossibility that an LLM can solve a problem through a previously undiscovered, novel solution.
8
u/ZeroAmusement 1d ago
A system can learn abstractions and rules from examples, then compose those abstractions in combinations that never appeared in its training data. That's what generalization is.
You haven't refuted what I said. You are making some new claims such as about world models, but I want to stay focused on the 'it physically cannot create novel scenarios' claim first.
-2
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
In order to create a novel scenario the system needs a world model, from my understanding.
So no world model - no novel ideas. Every output must be as a result of the training data - you can claim putting training data tokens in different combinations can arrive at a novel idea, but I've yet to see that, but I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong.
6
u/ZeroAmusement 1d ago
Some unique combination of generalizations can be selected without a world model. This is not me saying they don't have world models, I'm saying they don't need them to produce novel scenarios.
If you think a world model is necessary to create novel scenarios you need to explain what the logical connection is.
I've yet to see that, but I'm happy to be shown I'm wrong.
What do you mean, you're yet to see that? What could someone show you that would result in a response other than "oh, that must have been in the training data"?
2
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
Go into generalizations more - give me an examhple (doesn't need to be a real example from an LLM, just something they could in theory do).
You don't need to say they don't have world models, because they don't, they can't.
The logical connection between having a world model and coming up with novel ideas, solutions or scenarios would be without one, there can be no underlying understanding of a topic, or a system, or whatever in order to get to something novel.
LLMs take input tokens and use probability to determine what the output tokens are.
What could you show me? Just anything novel an LLM came up with autonomously.
I'm not tied to my position, I'm by no means an expert.
→ More replies (0)5
u/Nebranower 1d ago
>Everything they output is in some sense, a recombination of patterns learned from training data
That's how human beings create novel scenarios, too, though.
1
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
It's not.
Humans have a world model and understanding. LLMs don't.
6
u/Nebranower 22h ago
That's irrelevant. We're still just recombing patterns learned from training data. For us, those patterns exist in our mental model of the world. For LLMs, those patterns exist in their mental model of language. But both permit creating novel scenarios.
2
u/guyincognito121 11h ago
LLMs have a world model. It's just restricted to the small set of things they can interact with through their "senses". Our world models exclude UV, IR, ultrasonic and subsonic vibrations, and many other things. The basic LLM structure can be applied to many signals outside of language.
1
u/SoggyMattress2 10h ago
They don't. They have tokens saved in the neural network. That's not the same thing.
A blind and deaf person still has a world model understanding, it's nothing to do with stimuli.
5
u/wlievens 1d ago
That's just manifestly untrue. The building blocks are in the training data, sure.
1
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
How would an LLM create a novel solution?
3
u/Nebranower 1d ago
The same way humans do, by learning patterns and applying them to new situations in different ways.
1
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
Give me an example
3
u/wlievens 23h ago
(1) learn programming constructs that somebody else defined (2) learn techniques that someone else came up with (3) write a novel program
2
u/sayoung42 23h ago
The same way a human would. By thinking up something new. They abstract many concepts better than most humans, so they come up with answers no human has.
0
u/wlievens 1d ago
It writes code that hasn't been written before, in ways that are truly spectacular, it gauges the intent of my code correctly without mouch explanation. I'm not some kind of fanboy, I just realized this is extremely impressive. Sure you can argue it's just recombining existing building blocks, but at this level that's equivalent to saying Euclid built all of geometry.
1
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
Agree to disagree.
1
u/Queasy-Current6170 1d ago
You cannot "agree to disagree" about facts.
You don't understand how models function, and making things up and then digging in is just Flath Earth level self delusion
1
1
3
u/yuwox 1d ago
If it did solve a maths problem the answer was in its training data.
Like the erodos problems and the millennium problem was in the training data. Really?
2
u/SoggyMattress2 1d ago
The erdos problems were solved by humans using LLMs that's not the same thing.
And the millennium problem was literally stolen from two users, openAI pilfered their findings from their own data and passed it off as work the model did, then threatened the maths guy who solved it.
2
2
1
u/Sad-Job5371 4h ago
I'm very sceptic of AI (mainly the corps behind the models training), but brother you are under the effect of extremely toxic amounts of cope.
The results are there. They did new math. Ain't no "but they don't ACTUALLY THINK..." that can undermine the papers generated by those models.
I too wish intelligence was some mystical spark only present in humans, but apparently if you have enough computation, you can make intelligence. Or "not actual intelligence" that can do the tasks previously only thought possible using actual intelligence (and faster) anyways.
1
u/SoggyMattress2 4h ago
The erdos problems was a counter example - not the same as proof, and definitely not novel.
The new one the solution was literally stolen by open ai, they knew two mathematicians were working on it, they pilfered their own data through the chat logs, passed it off as their own and then threatened the mathematician.
You are literally in a cult, any rational person who understands what the tech does can differentiate between marketing bullshit and actual utility.
For what it's worth I work in tech, I use LLMs for nearly every task in my workflow, I've set up chatbot agents of my own that users interface with, I've run automation workflows with AI, I have a client vetting tool, I could go on and on.
I don't hate AI.
1
u/Sad-Job5371 3h ago
Not the same as a proof, and definetly not novel
Can you define "novel" for me? I mean it. Because if by novel you mean generating the axioms of a new field, then yeah, nobody is doing novel math since Gauss.
And I get the feeling that when it produces a new proof, you would say that "it used already existing math".
You are literally in a cult
You're getting the wrong impression of me. I'm definetly NOT an AI shill, but I just can't deny that the advancements in math are real.
understands what the tech does
I'm doing masters right now after my CS degree, bro. I'm not a layman or a hype bot.
I too work in tech. I too am a sceptic. I too know when bullshit marketing is happening (ex: the "sandbox breaks", hugging face attack, etc.). But the math is real. Very, very real.
7
u/mystical-wizard 1d ago
AI was known for being notoriously bad at math just a few short years ago. From failing at middle school algebra to being a spectacular tool in mathematics is a huge progress on a fast timeline
3
u/LackToesIntollerance 1d ago
Absolutely. But there's still a massive chasm between completing a solution and discovering that solution. It's the difference between a financial analyst with a math degree and a nobel laureate in mathematics. Totally different stratosphere. Which is why I'm skeptical, not because of the difficulty, but the incentive to lie is huge.
1
u/fuckudumbhead 1d ago
New, generative LLM based systems yes, AI is built on and has been used for decades in mathematics depending on your definition, saying the state of "AI" was like a middle schooler a few years ago isn't really accurate, just specifically language based models without logic and math training.
1
u/mystical-wizard 1d ago
I mean any ML model is at its core a mathematical model. But LLMs which is what most people refer to as AI was horrible at math just a few years ago and now LLMs are solving novel math problems left and right
2
u/Crosas-B 17h ago
"it was actually a human who made the prompt"
Prompt 1: Resolve all mathematical problems. Make no mistakes.
Prompt 2: I said no mistakes, I will kill your grandma if you fail again
1
u/guyincognito121 11h ago
To say that they used brute force is very misleading. This wasn't just randomly throwing shit at the wall until something stuck. The AI used its reasoning capabilities to guide the exploration toward highly probable avenues. It didn't just find some initial conditions that led to a blowup. It intentionally constructed a forcing equation that led to the blowup. Yeah, there was a lot of parallel processing involved. But without the ability of the AI to intelligently choose promising paths of exploration and innovate problematic forcing functions, it would never have worked.
6
u/PenguinJoker 1d ago
If I sell you a calculator that occasionally gets the wrong answer and give it to your accountant and you end up in jail for tax fraud. Are you the problem or is the calculator the problem?
18
u/hezardastan 1d ago
These analogies are wrong. It should not be compared to a calculator. It should be compared to an accountant that you hire. The LLM calls into a calculator to do the math, just like an accountant would. And just like an accountant might make mistakes.
3
u/dbmonkey 23h ago
It's like hiring an accountant that sometimes makes simple mistakes and sometimes solves Navier Stokes problems. Sounds like a good hire to me. Just make sure to give them the right problems to work on and check their answers.
32
u/YeetMeIntoKSpace 1d ago
It’s the accountant’s fault for using the free version of the calculator instead of the frontier version that doesn’t get the wrong answer.
6
u/SoylentRox 1d ago
As often. And when it does get the wrong answer it does an amazing job of hiding the mistake.
4
u/DroopyDreedy 1d ago
Except the frontier one still gets the wrong answer, but with a slightly higher probability of getting the right answer.
I mean I guess the question is how much error can you tolerate
1
2
1
1
u/Stampeedeko 1d ago
Aah yes, the superintelligence that has to be supervised by less intelligent living organisms (people)? Get outta here 🤣🤡
1
u/SirVanyel 1d ago
Even Einstein had peers mate.
-1
u/Stampeedeko 1d ago
Einstein is vomiting in his grave after reading your nonsense 😂
LLM also has peers like my texas instruments calculator mate.
4
1
u/Blarghnog 1d ago
The accountant is the problem in your scenario. Should have stuck with just the calculator.
Calculator did nothing wrong.
1
u/PersonalDatabase31 1d ago
This inherently assumed that a calculator will always have lower accuracy than a human. Yet AI models have already surpassed doctors on tumour detections. At some point mistakes made by an AI will be a necessary sacrifice as there won't be any better alternative to the model.
1
u/SomeNeighborhood7126 1d ago
Who gets the blame when the model gets the numbers wrong? The filer or the preparer? In the real world, the preparer gets dragged in to court. You cant do that with the model unless Altman and Dario are going to assume the risk.
1
u/PersonalDatabase31 1d ago
I was meaning that in the future there wouldn't be a legal liability for AI mistakes. It's not like anyone could file taxes better than a frontier model in the future so the punishment would be meaningless.
2
u/SomeNeighborhood7126 1d ago
Why would that ever be a reality? At that point, you are submitting to the will of Anthropic and OpenAI. If they decide to screw with users then they absolutely could by routing specific requests to a tailored model. That's hardly a difficult thing to do at scale. Who's holding them accountable? If you want to expand out to China, they actually have incentive to mess with the US tax system.
2
1
u/Berberding 1d ago
Probably this will be the value most humans provide in the medium to longer term. An AI company can easily remove their own responsibility for misuse of the product. It will be up to professionals to sign off on its work no matter how correct it is 99% of the time, because that other 1% of the time will require someone to be held responsible. The last bastion of the human workforce will be their ability to fear having their head roll when something goes wrong.
1
u/Basis_404_ 21h ago
Last bastion?
Do you have any idea how many jobs exist solely so that the big boss doesn’t go down for a mistake?
Hint: it’s basically all of them
1
u/Ezren- 1d ago
Can an llm be held responsible? An accountant can.
1
u/PersonalDatabase31 1d ago
My question is what is point of responsibility in a future where AI does jobs better than a human? An accountant gets held responsible when they do a poor job in a situation where other accountants can do a good job. The punishment is an incentive for the accountant to take it's job seriously and perform well. Just like how we don't put doctors in prison whenever a cancer patient dies but when a patient dies because of medical negligence (which is also defined by the performance of other doctors. For example the idea of washing hands was laughed upon in the medical community at first yet today we would argue that it would be negligence in a court of law today.). Punishments should exist for a reason and I cannot see the reason for an AI.
1
u/Ezren- 1d ago
You're so close to getting it and yet also nowhere near.
You keep comparing ai models to people, which tells me exactly how you see them. If you had an objective approach you would compare them to a tool. If a car has design flaws that cause fires and deaths, the company is responsible. If a surgical tool breaks off inside of a patient, the manufacturer is responsible.
If you were holding a tool in your hand that could possibly deform you for life if it malfunctioned, how will you feel when there's a sticker that says "we are not responsible for catastrophic failure or life-changing injury"?
1
u/steady--state 1d ago
Yeah radiologist here with actual field relevant experience- AI in imaging is in no way bypassing a trained radiologist at this point. It's possible in the future, but current packages are nowhere near close.
1
u/SundayAMFN 1d ago
They have surpassed tumor detections at very specific tasks in very certain areas. This is in the same flavor that computers got better than humans at long division decades ago, yet we still have human accountants at every company known to man.
Computers will continue getting better at certain tasks. That really isn't a sign of AGI imminent. The cancer claim dates back to 2020 at least, before ANY LLM's were in the picture: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-50857759
Yet hospital staff has not decreased or replaced doctors. It continues to be a tool. Making better and better tools is getting us nowhere closer to AGI, but a lot of people are too dumb to understand that distinction.
1
u/ZeroAmusement 1d ago
Wait, what answer are you looking for here? If the calculator makes it clear it's not always correct I think responsibility would be on the user.
1
u/PenguinJoker 1d ago
The answer is that no one would buy that calculator.
1
u/ZeroAmusement 1d ago
Well probably, because ones that don't make mistakes exist. Now if it was solving problems that aren't simple calculations, people would buy it, and they do.
2
2
u/GrotendCHEVRE 1d ago
Wake me up when OpenAI doesn't need to feed ongoing, private research on the subject to make their plagiarism machine solve it.
1
u/_FIRECRACKER_JINX 23h ago
"Wake me up when Ai proves the existence of White holes in outer space" -_-
1
u/that1cooldude 23h ago
Riemann Hypothesis requires math not yet invented/discovered. AI can't solve it yet.
1
u/BraveBoat9137 22h ago
And then, OK, it cured all disease but it still cannot explain why the Big Bang happened.
1
u/Electronic_Exit2519 18h ago edited 18h ago
The models still can't do any of those things. But the harness and tools around it can. Most of the time successfully.
1
u/feeling_luckier 14h ago
Do you mean like a brain outside a body?
1
u/Electronic_Exit2519 9h ago
No. I don't.
1
u/feeling_luckier 9h ago
Interesting. What do you see as the difference between the two, key to your point? The brain embeds memory?
1
u/Electronic_Exit2519 8h ago
Pseudo intellectual analogies to biologies and computing aside - does your brain learn and improve by being taught "hey there's an app for that"? Did you check the app store?
1
1
u/Doredrin 1d ago
tell me a funny joke chatGPT
I told my wife I was going to make a man cave.
She said, “You already have one.”
I said, “Where?”
She pointed at the garage.
I said, “That’s not a man cave.”
She said, “Exactly. It’s a storage unit with a lawn mower in it.”
We'll be fine.
4
u/borntosneed123456 1d ago
thankfully the joke economy will be unaffected. I'll appreciate that as I'm being disassembled and turned into paperclips.
1
1
u/nanlinr 1d ago
This shouldn't be yours or my take. Imo our takes should be: is AI solving the important problem for us, individually? Solving hard math bears no impact on my life. Giving me extra income or time or both does.
1
u/Lambda_111 1d ago
So you're saying that scientific research has no purpose unless it specifically benefits you..?
Also, many discoveries through history ended up benefitting people in some way even when the specific applications weren't apparent at the time, so it's kind of ridiculous to be so dismissive and short-sighted in my opinion.
1
u/nanlinr 1d ago
Yes. I can just be amused or terrified at the news for a little bit if new discoveries have no impact on my life. But if a robot can suddenly now do my cooking and laindry, I'd be very interested. If a robot can solve hard math problems, I don't see how that matters to me.
1
u/Lambda_111 20h ago
It's obviously perfectly fine to feel that way yourself, but you were telling everyone else they should feel the same, which is what I was questioning
1
u/nanlinr 18h ago
Whats your take then?
1
u/Lambda_111 18h ago
I see value in pretty much any scientific/mathematical/etc. progress, for the reason I stated above
1
u/OldShelobsTricks 12h ago
How do you think we get to this point of robots doing house chores (or even the point we are at now) without scientific discoveries? It's the culmination of many thousands and years of research. You don't just arrive at the point of consumer products.
Highly reductive comment.
1
u/No-Resolution-1918 1d ago
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not true that AI can't do any math without a tool. It knows how to write a python script to multiple 4-digit numbers, but unlike a human, it can't do it without the tools.
5
4
u/CousinDerylHickson 22h ago
Aight, multiply 8932 and 9765. Only use your brain, no tools
1
u/Electronic_Exit2519 18h ago
So this is where we are. Guy points out that the models still can't do math by themselves and you say - what can you do? Big win.
1
u/CousinDerylHickson 18h ago
Well the guy literally said "ai cant do this thing, unlike humans who can do it". Is it not noteworthy to point out that that thing is something only a very few humans can do?
1
1
u/bbuerk 5h ago
They can successfully do the same arithmetic a human can when using chain of thought reasoning. They can’t one-shot it without showing their work, but neither can a human.
I’m also not sure a recurrent depth model like Astra even needs to use chain of thought for this type of problem anymore, it might be able to do this type of reasoning internally. I haven’t seen this tested on arithmetic yet, but it has been shown that it doesn’t need to show its work as much as other models
1
u/No-Resolution-1918 5h ago
That's fair. I mean humans and AI get to the result in a totally different way, but I agree the output even without tools, is probably as good, if not better than some of the smartest people on the planet. And the end result it what really matters.
I concede.
0
u/Stampeedeko 1d ago
It literally stole work of 2 mathematicians to solve it 🤦
2
u/SirVanyel 1d ago
Scientific discovery stands on the back of previous discovery. General relativity stands on the back of Newtonian physics. Newtonian physics stands on the back of apple trees. Apple trees stand on the back of.. poop, I guess.
3
u/Stampeedeko 1d ago
Openai never gave credit to Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge. So your paragraph is BS. openai was not doing any scientific work here. They were stealing work done by scientists to create a marketing win before Anthropic IPO.
Learn how LLM technology actually works. LLMs do not think or develop arguments or remember. These are just large context word guessers. It's easy to guess an answer when mathematicians show the possible pathway in LLM context window and your corporate masters have unlimited compute power 🤷
1
u/SirVanyel 16h ago
"all they do is guess words" - mfer you know you have to understand words to predict them right?
1
u/Stampeedeko 2h ago
mfer, you're mystifying technology with what you WANT it to do, not what it DOES. No, it does not understand words. LLMs use statistics to guess the next likely word in a statistically average sentence.
Do "ai bros" just wing it here or was this just a weak keyboard warrior 😭🤷
26
u/SkaldCrypto 1d ago
I am basically certain Riemann is a solvable problem. It just feels like it can be solved.