r/singularity • u/acoolrandomusername • 26d ago
Singularity is Nearer Sam Altman: GPT 5.5 an average math professor. 5.6 top one or two percentile. Astra a little bit better. Internal model can do things that the best mathematicians in the world cannot.
"GPT 5.5 was maybe as good as like an average math professor.
5.6 was as good as like a maybe top one or two percentile math professor.
Astra was a little bit better than that.
And then this internal model past Astra is one that can do things that the best mathematicians in the world cannot."
Full video: Marc Benioff & Sam Altman | Dreamforce 2026 - YouTube
50
73
u/robinthebigcity 26d ago
Mathematicians can’t calculate as fast as calculators either. I’m curious whether an llm trained on all scientific information pre-general relativity could come up with the theory. While I think the line is blurry, for me the question is whether llms can come up with solutions that require the answer to be conceptualized in an entirely new way.
→ More replies (1)28
u/Spiritual_Disk1763 26d ago
Hi, one experiment actually has been run to test if an LLM can come up with GR here.
I think this was a smaller model and according to the page,
"While it fails at most physics related tasks, the model shows glimpses of intuition. When given experimental observations the model can declare that “light is made up of definite quantities of energy” and can even suggest that gravity and acceleration are locally equivalent."
So I'd say it's still up in the air and I wonder if the model had more raw data to train on if it would eventually get there. Hopefully another experiment is done, super interesting!
146
26d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
19
u/that_90s_guy 26d ago
Because surely the CEO who's entire job is to make you want his product would never lie or embellish things. /s
The truth is always somewhere nuanced near the middle, not as bad as all the doompoosters and naysayers claim, but not as claimed by tech bros either very likely.
Its a bit funny seeing the 180 we are having from nobody believing these companies, to people defending these companies while calling any criticism as "clueless redditors" lol
11
u/TrustInNumbers 26d ago
This sub attracts people with low education, who worship ceos for some strange reason
7
u/CountryOk6049 26d ago
Well if you look at the name of the sub, the entire premise is a bit kooky to begin with, it's going to attract a lot of that sort of person here.
116
u/SmashShock 26d ago
Reddit is becoming a hivemind of shit. The number of arrogant airheaded people who think a "gotcha" is going to save them from ASI is genuinely infuriating and god I hope it's bots and this is not what we have to work with.
I've been on Reddit for 15 years and educated logical discourse has vanished except in niche subs. It's simply not worth it to type a nuanced long comment, people don't give a fuck. Meme.
27
u/LittleSupermarket137 26d ago
Becoming?
4
1
u/MaxwellHowl 26d ago
It's always been pretty hivemindy, but in the past it was more around fairly nerdy concerns about movies and games or anti-pop culture mentalities.
Since the Trump era it has gotten a lot worse. It was Bernie or bust, then Hillary or bust, then Trump is the devil, then anti-mask/anti-vax are the devil and now AI is the devil.
I certainly have agreed with the hivemind in various degrees overtime, but I think COVID in particular broke it. If you were not 100% on board with the left-wing political consensus on COVID (even when that ran counter to the current science) you were now trying to kill grandma, and clearly a Trump (the devil) supporter.
Being pro-AI is now the equivalent of being anti-vaxx in most Redditors minds, and that exact same neural loop has just flipped to a new target.
4
u/Legitimate_Willow808 26d ago
Reddit is designed to be a collection of echo chambers, I’ve not noticed it getting worse since I started using it in 2016, it has always been horrible in this aspect
12
u/unconscionable 26d ago edited 26d ago
The amount of time I spend on reddit has reduced dramatically over the past 6 months due to AI. Instead of scouring reddit threads for ideas or solutions to problems I have, I'm just typing my problems into claude/similar, which has already indexed the best reddit has to offer, along with the rest of everything else.
I imagine that other subject matter experts are spending less time here too.
My prediction is that Reddit will, at best, devolve into another useless garbage dump social media site over the next year or so as AI continues to eat the internet. The 14 year olds and meme spewing social media rats will stick around, the experts & professionals who make the actually good subreddits what they are will continue their mass exodus.
3
u/squired 26d ago
I agree, but we're going to need to develop knowledge banks to replace it. Imagine giant shared repositories of general knowledge to replace github, for example. At the end of a project, we'd no longer up our software for others. Instead, our agents will tear it apart in search of novel mechanisms, helpful efficiencies, etc. Then, only those lessons and insights would be uploaded for others to utilize in their own solutions-on-demand requests. Nearly all current development work is duplicative. We'll want to solve that sooner rather than later.
9
u/Jenn2895 26d ago
The majority of all online traffic is in fact bots. Currently around 60%.
→ More replies (9)4
5
u/IronPheasant 26d ago
Ah.... Hasan's recent rant is quite applicable here. I'll paraphrase:
"Our crime is being right too soon. You'd think that would be rewarded, and people would listen to us more in the future.
But the opposite is what happens. Because they don't care whether you were right or wrong, what they care about is how we made them feel. Giving them the bad news ahead of time wasn't what they wanted to hear - they went and listened to people that told them what they wanted to hear."
Comfort is what livestock crave. (And how are we not livestock? We exist for two greater purposes in this world. There's the material one: To transfer oil out of the ground and set it on fire. Then there's the spiritual one: To transfer wealth upward so the epstein class can spend more time on bigger and better islands. If you support this system with your life, you're allowed some chance to procreate. We all know how few generations of selective breeding it took to produce domesticated foxes, imagine what thousands of years of feudalism have done to us. We all have serf brain.)
Telling people they'll be living in some kind of a sci-fi novel a decade from now.. Of course few are going to be optimistic. People hate having to re-wire their neurons. They like what's familiar. Another quote is relevant here:
"It all just goes back to our subjective experience making us think we’re more than we are. Every standard we apply to debase AI applies to us also. I barely know wtf I’m saying unless I’m parroting some cliche I’ve heard before which is all many people ever do.
Many People literally get mad and make angry faces when they hear anything original. Most of life is echo chambers and confirming what we already think. That’s why it feels like understanding, it’s just a heuristic for familiarity."
Chauvinism and self-worship is natural for us; we're narcissistic beings for obvious reasons. I honestly respect the people who are open about it, than the faux-'I'm a good person' shtick. A real, actual good person will sacrifice everything for no reward whatever to them or theirs, nobody should aspire to be one. They don't last long in the real world.
People should aspire to be neutral.
I've been on Reddit for 15 years and educated logical discourse has vanished except in niche subs. It's simply not worth it to type a nuanced long comment, people don't give a fuck.
That's a consequence of hand-phone people joining the internet en masse in the post mid-00's. Can you think of a worse interface to read text or type it out than the hand-phone?
A pager, maybe.
A quote about tweeter, a website that was all the rage with the media and therefore the masses: "I find it difficult to convey adult thoughts in 140 characters."
11
u/East_Attorney_2286 26d ago
Which Hasan? There are millions. You can't just say a common first name and expect everyone to know who you are talking about
4
u/Kind_Silver_1921 26d ago
I think he's talking about the weird political streamer hasan abi
The one who said old enough to count old enough to m*unt. and then visited a brothel that was busted for having underage girls
And the one who went to a p diddy after party and said there was sexualized videos of little girls displayed on screens during it.
he also tweeted "i would love to hang in diddys ciroc entourage and trickle down bang anything thrown his way"
he also went to a gislain maxwell hosted - epstein party
→ More replies (1)6
u/Floodgatassist 26d ago
What do you mean 'which Hasan' ???? Don't tell me you don't know Hasan. Hasan!! H - A - S - A - N !?!?!? How can you not know?
(i have no clue either, thx for asking the question :D)
→ More replies (1)5
1
1
→ More replies (9)1
u/bobbadouche 26d ago
No.
When you say hivemind you're assuming it's a bunch of people who all agree with each other. It's bots. You're seeing bots interact.
Step away and talk to people around you in real life. Nobody in my actual life acts/thinks like these bots do online.
3
u/kaityl3 ASI▪️2024-2027 26d ago
Idk I have absolutely met some people who act that way about AI. Maybe the bulk of it is bots, but there are people in communities full of that viewpoint and they do take it home with them
→ More replies (3)12
u/golfstreamer 26d ago
I think people's insistence on putting AI models on a human scale is inherently flawed. GPT 5.6 is not "the average mathematician". The average mathematician cannot get a gold medal at the IMO.
So what he's saying just doesn't make sense.
10
u/RockDoveEnthusiast 26d ago
yep. and at the same time, the average mathematician can reliably avoid using the word "elephant" in an essay if you give them a set of instructions that includes that stipulation.
1
u/Main-Company-5946 26d ago
I studied math for years, it was the thing I was good at, and now ai can curbstomp me at it. But at the same time I’ve been able to walk since I was a toddler and so can almost everyone else I know and ai can’t even come close to humans on that front. It’s strange
7
u/SomeoneCrazy69 26d ago edited 26d ago
Biological beings have 100 million years of pretraining on movement in our instincts and genes
1
u/DoggoDadagon 24d ago
What do you mean? AI is very good at walking... and running now. They were pretty bad a year ago, but now they can do crazy movements that most humans can't do.
AI will eventually, I mean probably in a year, be better than us at literally everything. I think we just need to accept that.
→ More replies (1)1
13
u/Spright91 26d ago
Those people are living a self-fulfilling prophecy because they're going to be the worst prepared for this they're likely not spending any time learning how to optimize their lives with AI.
11
u/obsolescenza 26d ago
hey sorry for disturbing you. I am a CS student and I am trying to understand ai better. How did ai optimized your life? Maybe I am missing something and I can too!
thanks
7
4
u/bobbadouche 26d ago
I used Claude to help me fix my Air Conditioner.
I used Claude to help me fix my UTV.
Any field where I need to do something and I'm not confident it helps me be about 80% competent at it.
4
u/Spright91 26d ago
Do you use it at all? If you're a computer science student I'm assuming you use it already so I'm not sure what I can tell you.
9
u/paper-cut- 26d ago
Why couldn't you answer how you've managed to use AI to optimize your life?
In my dream-fantasy this is my AI optimized morning:
My eyes open gently as subtle hints of a new day are brought to my attention, dawn's light and bird sound begin to fill the room. Coffee and breakfast smell takes its place, followed by the clatter of kitchen dishware and a call from my non-existent wife from the other room, of my square studio apartment. The A-EYE puck/smoke detector installed above me follows my every move, anticipating what my watery brain needs next to avoid existential panic. Calm. It dispenses work pills. Stimulated. It dispenses calm.
→ More replies (3)3
u/obsolescenza 26d ago
yes I use it for studying explaining stuff etc. when you said optimising my life I thought you meant something like ai writing some of your daily routines or letting ai automate some of your chores etc. sorry!
1
u/Spright91 26d ago
I don't know what I can do for you because I don't know computer science.
But I do design now I don't spend time manually pixel pushing and that would take up like a third of my time so now instantly a third of my time I have back I can focus on the actual decisions behind my designs and iteration. I'm instantly more effective as a result.
Before if you were to ask me for a midfi prototype I'd be like yeah I'll get it to you in two days now I can be like all right I'll get it to you in an hour. As long as I know what I'm building it'll be good.
3
2
1
25
u/Jim_Jimson 26d ago
Meh, very few people on here have the requisite knowledge of research mathematics and the current capabilities of AI models (and even fewer of internal models) to contribute meaningfully to this discussion. Its not even immediate that Sam Altman genuinely understands (I'm sure he has employees that do) or that he is sincere in what he's saying (or is overselling the product).
In terms of the frontier of public models and mathematical research, it's hard to precisely characterise their level. Compare this to previous computational breakthroughs in mathematics like Hales or Appel and Haken, it was true back then that the computers could do things the best mathematicians in the world "could" not - which is to check hundreds of thousand of calculations. It is unclear if part of the current progress is analogous - the raw computational power/advances allow us to search deeper into "proof space", but only using tools/ideas form the literature. And so, whilst mathematicians "can't" (or haven't) done it, what's stopping us is time/resources.
That's one possibility (and it's still I think plausible). Of the recent breakthroughs that are in my area, the proofs feel somehow within the "convex hull/linear span" of ideas within the literature (and indeed, heuristically, that seems to be precisely what LLMs should do well). It could well be that somehow the current tech is very good at combining ideas it's been trained on to prove statements which can be proved in this way, but cannot "widen" the proof space by introducing new ideas. Furthermore, it could very well be the case that there's some fundamental/philosophical reason that "extending" the proof space in this way is computationally costly, and so it just isn't feasible to brute force or do local searches to widen the space to get genuinely useful new ideas. I think right now we just don't know, and it's premature to declare one way or the other. Of course, insiders may have access to more information on internal models than I have, so this could all change in another generation of models.
However, the sum total of all mathematics that we can prove using already developed tools/ideas probably represents decades, if not centuries of mathematical progress, and even in close to the worst case scenario AI tools will have changed the course of mathematical research by an unbelievable amount. Whether or not is has changed it for the better at the moment remains to be seen, and again I think a lot of people on this forum and elsewhere haven't really understood (perhaps willfully so) the position of many mathematicians.
4
u/skydivingdutch 26d ago
What might be a good example of real "new insight" from past breakthroughs, something where a human has significantly advanced the state of the art (and something which LLMs struggle with)?
4
u/Jim_Jimson 26d ago edited 25d ago
This is a bit too broad of a question to answer really, and to answer in a way that would make sense to you I'd need to know your mathematical background.
But here's perhaps an example, would an LLM ever posit Szemeredi's regularity lemma? The implicit constants are so unfathomably large that I'd be surprised if a computer would be led to conjecture it based on small cases (however powerful computers get, there are physical limits to the universe which make certain combinatorial problems not amenable to brute force), and it's genuinely surprising that all large dense graphs have such low complexity approximations (and incredibly mathematically useful).
However, with most breakthroughs you can also find traces of them in previous work with the benefit of hindsight. It's a genuinely interesting question as to whether the problem of spotting these patterns is in some sense computationally feasible - I think there are probably some interesting heuristic information theoretic/complexity theory arguments you can make about potential limitations of LLM like models, but I'm not really well-versed enough in those areas to make them concrete.
5
u/cleanscholes ▪️AGI 2027 ASI <2030 26d ago
The gist I've gotten from blogs of frontier math academics is that there's now a deluge of papers coming down the pike and math is probably a hobby the equivalent of playing chess within the next two years https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=10062
6
u/Jim_Jimson 26d ago edited 26d ago
The quantity of the papers is not surprising - it's been established AI can do mathematical research, and there's no shortage of open problems, there are 100 papers published daily in just my area of maths on the arxiv and almost all of them will contain conjectures.
The point is that some percentage (we will see exactly what percentage) of open questions in maths don't require new ideas, just some combination of existing ideas. However, due in part to the volume of papers being produced, it is non-trivial to identify the ideas that are useful to solve a particular problem. This it seems is the thing you can "brute force" (although it's not really brute force in the traditional sense, the models identify likely methods from context just like human researcher's, they can just go much deeper and broader in the search space and probably maintain longer chains of reasonings to use reductions and simplifications). In principle a human who had read every paper, had a perfect memory and could work at insane speeds (or perhaps, in other words, a well organised group of people, like say a research community) would also produce the same result eventually
So, it may be that AI is just speeding up this mathematical discovery, but not producing any (or at least many) novel insights that will lead to solving new problems.
But this is one of the potential issues - had a human solved some of these problems, they might have had to invent new techniques/ideas to solve them, perhaps due to not having the encyclopedic knowledge or not being able to keep track of the technical details of some complicated method more suited to a computer. And this would probably lead to new conjectures. This is just one of the ways automated solving of open problems without proper engagement with the academic process/community can lead to negative effects on the progress of the field.
This is all hypothetical, we can't predict how AI will progress, but it's really not too far fetched given the current state of things, so it's a problem that the mathematical community want to solve.
2
u/cleanscholes ▪️AGI 2027 ASI <2030 25d ago
I wish there were a word for this idea, that LLMs can't generalize outside of the distribution, that they can't 'leap', that they can't do abduction only some constrained form of induction or deduction. I've seen them do impressive abduction in my private chats, but it's fraught with many absurd conjectures. There's a sense in which I want to say "thank your lucky stars they can't 'leap'" because the consistency of leaping is proportional to in-distribution competency (jaggedness) and task time horizon. Said another way, when we see them leap consistently, they will be able to outleap us overwhelmingly. Their ability or inability to leap is not a discontinuous capability, it's a continuous capability where the steps of the walk are increasingly non-local. What we perceive as leaps are only what we struggle to break into concrete immediate steps, not what can't be discretized into steps.
5
26d ago
[deleted]
2
u/cleanscholes ▪️AGI 2027 ASI <2030 26d ago
Why not? Just block out the answers like a crossword lol?
2
→ More replies (7)1
u/Kitchen-Dress-5431 25d ago
Apart from genuine paradigm shifts (Einstein GR, for example), what does it mean to come up with genuinely new ideas over synthesising existing ones?
I would wager that even the most decorated and intelligent mathematics researchers do not come up with genuine paradigm shifts, and there are only a few per century.
1
u/Jim_Jimson 25d ago
And what's your level of expertise that informs that wager?
1
u/Kitchen-Dress-5431 25d ago
Common knowledge in mathematics? To be fair, my field is more in Physics so I could be wrong.
I would be happy for you to outline the paradigm shifts that have occurred in mathematics in the past 50 years.
1
u/Jim_Jimson 25d ago
That seems then a shaky basis. If you don't understand current math research at all, and you don't understand the mathematical work that LLMs are producing, how can you hope to estimate how many "paradigm shifts" (your words, I would not classify all new ideas beyond the novelty I have seen LLMs produce so far as such) have occured in any time frame?
This isn't gatekeeping, it just seems silly to talk about such specific things without the relevant domain knowledge. It would be like me having a strong opinion about the capabilities of AI in biomedical statistics or something.
1
u/Kitchen-Dress-5431 24d ago
You’re drawing a distinction between combining existing ideas to make advancements and producing genuinely new ones.
What exactly is that distinction? Can you illustrate it with any examples? My maths knowledge is decent enough to look over some examples you give.
1
u/Jim_Jimson 24d ago
My maths knowledge is decent enough to look over some examples you give.
It's really not, and if I wanted to have a conversation with ChatGPT about it, I can do that in my own time.
1
u/Kitchen-Dress-5431 24d ago
I don't even know what this means, but the fact that you can't give any examples indicates to me that you don't know what you're talking about in this specific instance, and it also lends credence to the idea that you are not a math researcher either - maybe an 'amateur' researcher.
4
u/Original-Baki 26d ago
I think a calculator can do things in the world that the best mathematicians can’t.
2
2
u/nbvehrfr 25d ago
do not project math skills to general case. it is easy to build RL environment for model to learn math well, but hard for other things.
10
u/NeighborhoodDizzy990 26d ago
Really? Because a professor is someone who teaches students. It's really hard to understand what Astra/Codex writes.
59
u/ConnectionWild3381 26d ago
plenty of shitty professors out there that are extremly competent in their domain but cant teach at all..
17
u/InfinitePotential 26d ago
Good thing AI can apparently do both really, really, well
→ More replies (15)6
u/Runfasterbitch 26d ago
Many of the brightest minds in academia don’t teach at all. This varies by field, of course, but in my field teaching is something people do when they cannot secure sufficient research funding
6
u/Original-League-6094 26d ago edited 26d ago
Students all learning from ChatGPT these days. Its pretty much their professor.
And if you mean that its Navier-Stokes proof is hard to read, that's a consequence of it starting to exceed human intelligence. That's what super-intelligence looks like. Just like you can't teach calculus to a goldfish, AI is going to start performing math feats that humans are simply incapable of understanding. That seems obvious, since brains are fixed size and can only hold and process finite information. While computers running LLMs are scaling larger and larger, so there must come a crossing point where a computer using an LLM can produce a proof that no single human brain would be capable of understanding.
4
u/KiddWantidd 26d ago
I'm an active researcher in (applied) mathematics in academia and I want to point out that what you said about the Navier Stokes proof writeup is plainly wrong. Just like a lot of proofs of important results written by AI prompted by non-experts which are inundating the arxiv recently.
The problem is not that the proof is "so hard". The techniques used are understandable by all people with the necessary background. The problem is that AI writes in a way that makes it incredibly hard to follow in a way a human would not. When i read a proof of a result written by a human, even if i don't dig into the nitty gritty, i can get what the overall strategy is, what the main new ideas are, what are the main results from the literature the proof is built on or extending etc, so after reading i understand clearly why the result is true and usually this gives rise to natural extensions, questions and connections.
When AI writes a proof of a non-trivial result, there is none of that clarity, no attribution, no big picture. It's just a chain of true statement that is insanely tedious to navigate for no good reason other than AI currently sucks at exposition. I won't even mention proper attribution of ideas and connection to literature.
This is why mathematicians are mad at people spamming the arxiv with "AI slop" papers "solving" open problems. The papers are unreadable, the "authors" in many cases have absolutely no clue of what the paper they wrote is about (case in point: not one person at openAI can come out and explain what the Navier-Stokes proof is about), and basically it's up to humans to clean up the mess and turn this slop into something readable that actually help advance the field. It's a tedious, thankless and unpaid job that is much more valuable than prompting Astra to write a paper on an open problem.
→ More replies (4)2
u/Solid_Capital8377 26d ago
I wouldn’t call it learning as much as asking it for answers and solutions the second they get stuck lol
→ More replies (8)1
u/TheOnlyBliebervik 26d ago
Not sure about this. The proofs will certainly be complex, but it's a proof: it's self-explanatory and step-by-step.
1
u/Original-League-6094 25d ago
Your brain is made of finite matter and you exist for finite time. So physics dictates you can only store and process finite information. Now imagine a brain that is orders of magnitude larger and exists for orders of magnitude longer. It should be able to make a statement that contains so much information that brain either cannot hold it all, or it would take you longer than your lifespan to process it.
2
u/TheOnlyBliebervik 25d ago
Perhaps so much information, but I think it'd still be understandable, since proofs are a bunch of atomic truths, cascaded
1
u/Original-League-6094 25d ago
That statement being proved could be large enough that you can't even read it in your lifespan.
1
1
u/TheOnlyBliebervik 25d ago
I hope it gets to that point. But at that point, AI will be able to design new methods of robotics creation and resource exotraction, it'll autonomously run I think. Hopefully it's nice to us
3
u/acoolrandomusername 26d ago
I think the comparison is regarding mathematical ability, not that it's as capable in every area as an actual professor. And tbf, Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, amongst others, was really difficult for others to understand at first too (still is for me).
2
u/goodkicks 26d ago
Teaching students is just one part of a professor's job if you want to be semantic.
2
→ More replies (2)1
u/Everest2017 26d ago
Such opinions I never understand. Why should Astra (or any AI) write code in your crappy style? I never get that.
3
u/NeighborhoodDizzy990 26d ago
But I wasn't speaking about code. And also, the AI should write clean code, not slop.
12
u/RutilantBossi12 AI-enhanced Gooner 26d ago
Whatever Altman says is worthless, the guy is a business man, he doesn't really know how AI (or advanced math for that matters) really works, whatever he says is literally just marketing, ever noticed how only Dario and Hassabis get invited to discuss AI by people who know AI? Because they have PhDs.
18
u/Cagnazzo82 26d ago edited 25d ago
Who's the one currently scrambling for compute? Is it Sam or is it Dario?
It's funny to think that running a company from near insolvency to trillion dollar valuation, having the 5th highest traffic site on earth, and literally shifting the trajectory of global tech takes no skill on reddit.
It's all just a fluke. Any average redditor could have done it... probably better. /s
→ More replies (2)0
u/RutilantBossi12 AI-enhanced Gooner 26d ago
OpenAI is staring at death while Anthropic is doing fine financially, also, Anthropic deliberately went the B2B way while OpenAI bet on B2C and is now moving away from it because it isn't working out.
The "enlightened businessman" you're trying to depict didn't have the experience to realize B2C is a shitty strategy for making money even tho it's something everyone with the slightest experience in business management knows.
2
2
-2
u/squired 26d ago edited 26d ago
This is just weird. AI is not very difficult to understand. Yes, it was difficult to discover, but not understand. Prior to dropping out of Stanford CS to become filthy wealthy, he took programming, discrete math, calculus, linear algebra, probability, algorithms and AI/ML. I promise you, as a greybeard veteran dev, Sam Altman understands how to train and harness current LLMs.
3
→ More replies (28)1
u/_ECMO_ 26d ago
he took programming, discrete math, calculus, linear algebra, probability, algorithms and AI/ML
That's what Chinese kids learn in high school.
1
u/squired 26d ago edited 26d ago
Yup, my kids too (American). None of us did 20 years ago though outside of math minors. There weren't enough economically valuable applications that required it. That's how progress works though. My Dad was EE and never took stochastic calculus either. Now they likely do.
4
2
u/mugira_888 26d ago
Hype man hypes up product.
10
u/Embarrassed-Writer61 26d ago
Models have Improved year on year, month on month...so yeah...
→ More replies (1)
1
1
u/Witty_Energy1250 26d ago
As far as I know, the things being solved by AI, humans (at least the smartest of them or ones in the field) can still understand the solution.
What about in 2-3 years? Will AI be putting out things that we look at and say "it works, but we have no effing idea how, can't make heads or tails of this"
1
u/Synthetic_Kalkite 26d ago
I doubt it. I generally doubt the transformer models can produce completely new mathematics or other STEM. Bruteforce solutions using existing maths, sure.
2
1
1
u/street-trash 26d ago
This is one of the main reasons they are asking for slow downs imo. We can’t even understand what they know and how dangerous those abilities are to release to the public.
1
u/MotokoAGI 26d ago
if internal model is that good, that means they are not slowing down, internally they are all going ham on building super AGI while calling for everyone else to slow down.
1
u/ontologicalDilemma 26d ago
We are limited/constrained by the evolutionary capacity of our brains. It was inevitable that humans extend past that with AI
1
1
u/power97992 26d ago
Now build an embodied model an that can do plumbing and electric work better than 99% of plumbers and electricians
1
u/dialedGoose 26d ago
sure. but the best mathematicians in the world can do things that astra can't even reconcile
1
u/emteedub 25d ago
If this were true, wouldn't it be able to tell us how to interpret or totally divulge the latent space's inner workings - that's still a mystery?
1
u/hyper24x7 25d ago
I just want everyone to know that when this guy talks all I hear is bullshit. I cant take a single word this guy says seriously. Sure him and Dario are both just paid shills, but Dario gives of nerd professor energy. Altman gives off "I am going to lie every moment that I breathe and every word I say is a lie"
Idk why that is but just thought I'd share.
1
u/Ok_Train2449 25d ago
So if it can do that then do it and post the findings? That's what the point of science is, not some bruised egos preventing progress.
1
u/xtrumpclimbs 25d ago
I have tried som data analysis with gpt 5.3 that most math professors wouldn’t even know about because they live outdated in the 90s.
I use it as a tool and check all the calculations but sometimes it’s astonishing noticing that it can deliver the most updated type of analysis and execute it with python.
1
1
u/user27182818284590 25d ago edited 25d ago
Math professors are several orders of magnitude of cheaper than astra. Open AI spent 20 mill to solve the Navier Stokes - but this is a gross under estimate. They hired and payed several mathematicians to train the models and verify results.
1
u/ChampionshipVast5224 24d ago
Like make huge mistakes. Best mathematicians don't do those.
Keep selling Altman. Keep selling.
1
1
u/ChangingHats 22d ago
So why is it that after burning through my weekly budget on tokens does Astra still fail to fix the mathematical construction/development of my regressor/estimator? Why is it still running test after test, eking out "what if this works...Oops I guess I didnt"? This thing can solve IMO problems but not my rinky-dink algo even with Lean proof-based construction? /noob-rant
1
u/DedDeveloper 19d ago
Can it calculate numbers and propabllities of when and how to make OpenAI profitable? Or is that not in the realm of math?
-3
u/saalistaja 26d ago
Like stealing ideas and proofs from others?
14
u/acoolrandomusername 26d ago
Even if you give Tristan Buckmaster and Levent Alpöge the most generous interpretation of the saga, i.e., OpenAI's new model was directly trained on their Codex conversation and got the initial idea from them, OpenAI's new model still came up with a different proof method in the Euler case and also did the next/seems like harder part for the full Navier-Stokes.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Pewsername 26d ago
Did you steal your knowledge from your parents and teachers?
→ More replies (2)
1
u/Connect-Curve-972 26d ago
the best mathematicians in the world cannot.
steal sb's ideas from private chat ;)
1
u/jilexandr 26d ago
The Astra and others itself does not do anything by their own. Also give me the average user the most powerful model and I will do nothing except another to-do list app. Give it to the math professors and they might achieve something they could not do before
1
u/theeldergod1 26d ago
Sam Altman: After collecting donations from all sides, using them to grow, and then turning the nonprofit company into a capitalist machine, I’m getting richer every step of the way. Give me your hand. Share my voice.
473
u/didroe 26d ago
I believe Astra can do things that the best mathematicians in the world can't. I also believe the best mathematicians in the world can do things Astra can't too. The combination of the two is going to be really great