HI version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.
Advertisement
Advertisement
⚡ Community Insights
Discussion Sentiment
52% Positive
Analyzed from 2076 words in the discussion.
Trending Topics
#results#math#understanding#human#openai#more#business#software#mathematicians#let

Discussion (41 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews
Rather than sitting on these results until they had enough for a "shock and awe" 10-result dump, how about releasing these results individually as they were made/verified, as well as the failures (equally valuable to assess the current capabilities of LLMs), and try to make some analysis of HOW these breakthrough results were made. What were the prompts for each of these, how much guidance was there from the mathematicians employed by OpenAI, and most importantly how did the model arrive at these results ... what lines of reasoning resulted it in exploring ideas that humans had previously not explored?
Where were all the mathematicians and academics in general when “regular joe” was automated? Now it’s hitting close to home and their foreheads are starting to get sweaty. I’d say let them. Tough luck. Make mathematics as “cheap” as possible. Nobody owes them any favors.
Let’s commoditize “being smart” and let go of arbitrary divisions between us.
Go back 100 years and 15 percent of the population was "Farmer", and 30 percent were in some sort of "domestic" work.
Most modern jobs are a product of the fact that technology continues to advance. And by all measures it does not look like "ai" is going to change that.
In practice automation is great, as long as it doesn’t hit “the ones that matter” (a label which they themselves assign). I find it very hard to not imagine the smallest, tiniest violin playing the saddest song for them.
Again, “respect for mathematicians” and “their work”.. please. Just produce results. That’s all that ever mattered and let’s not change the rules of the game just because they don’t suit you anymore.
It's also a funny historical mirror to an earlier phase of math proof culture: in a previous era, cryptic result dumps were quite common.
I hope this will be normal practice eventually. “Show your work” is trivial if you use AI to solve a problem.
Understanding never was the goal, results were. We will be getting boatloads of those. What does your understanding get us? You get a fancy house out of it and you might be intellectually stimulated by it, sure, but I hope you can see how that does not constitute a valid need for the rest of society to labor just to support your class and its lifestyle.
Whoa, how quickly have we forgotten how the AI is trained?
> You get a fancy house […] society to labor just to support your class and its lifestyle.
Wait, how much money do you think math teachers make? Do you know how much money AI engineers make in comparison? Why the animus and insecurity toward education? You are making math teachers sound far more rich and powerful than they actually are.
> Understanding never was the goal
Hard disagree
It seems you're fighting an hallucinated enemy.
I tend to believe we're still likely at a very primitive level of technology. It's difficult to imagine this primarily because of unknown unknowns. For instance at the end of the 19th century it was believed that science had basically been finished, and all that remained was working things out to ever higher levels of precision to wrap up a few curiosities.
Then along come relativity, quantum mechanics, and more - all completely revolutionizing science, and upending centuries of false beliefs. I think we're far more likely to be at the end of the 19th century again, rather than at the end of science, or anywhere near such. And if that's the case, then it may well be that seemingly academic discoveries of today, perhaps ultimately achieved by an LLM, are what help unlock the next great revolution.
You are of course free to wield this new technology any way you choose (to the extent its owners and your wallet allow you to, for now at least), and if you can enrich yourself by doing so power to you. I won't attempt to dissuade you from your apparent hatred of those who have spent their lives trying to expand the boundaries of human understanding. I'll just state my equally emotion-driven opposing view: It always was and always will be about the understanding. "Results" and "progress" without sufficient thought are the reason our enormous modern wealth is accompanied by so much human misery.
I don't relish the prospect of living in your predicted world of multiplying technology untempered by human thought, if that's what happens to emerge. I don't think it will be a good place for anyone but a handful of the very richest. Good luck adding yourself to their number.
Exceptional mathematicians are not going to be jobless, just like master level craftsmen still do kinda well. Tough luck if your abilities are subpar to achieve excellence though, that is just the rat race to the bottom we have created and finally the so called intellectuels are also getting to fully taste it themselves. Realizing you were never that special and your job can be either fully automated away or reduced to a wage that barely pays the bills is a hard pill to swallow. But progress is inevitable as they have been saying.
I will keep studying math purely for fun.
People are having a rough time figuring out that good design and fundamentals no longer align with the business side of things.
Perhaps not in general, but this is nothing new or related to AI. For one thing software is a strangely private craft - your boss is likely only aware of what you are producing, not the craft or quality (or not) that went into it - the only ones aware of that would be co-workers who are looking at your source code, and perhaps choosing to use it or not. Secondly, the sad truth in business, not just for software developers, is that there is a huge amount of truth in "it's not what you know, it's who you know".
> People are having a rough time figuring out that good design and fundamentals no longer align with the business side of things.
The business may be unaware of what your code looks like, or the expertise that went into it to avoid bad outcomes (immediate or future), but they surely DO care when poor quality software leads to production outages, and customer complaints, and their boss yelling at them as a result. The results of poor quality software will manifest in many ways, not just the poor reliability and performance of your latest release, but also the future outcomes of attempts to build on top of it.
I think it's extremely early to assess the impact of AI software quality and the ways it impacts businesses in these ways, such as production outages, that they do care about. There have certainly been well publicized cases such as AWS outages blamed on AI, but although it seems like an eternity it's only been ~6 months since AI really became usefully competent and capable of "vibe coding", so I think we're only just beginning to see the results.
Companies and bosses that have enthusiastically adopted AI are unlikely to point to AI and themselves if/when it proves to be detrimental (AWS were quick to deny it, despite the insider leaks to the contrary), so I'd not be surprised if it takes years rather than months for there to be much clarity on this.
FWIW, I think there is a considerable difference between math, which is what we're really discussing here, and software development, regarding how quickly it will or has fallen to AI. Math is really uniquely suited to LLMs and reinforcement learning of domain-specific reasoning since mathematical papers basically consist of nothing but reasoning (training data!), and it is an entirely theoretical field that essentially lives in the world of language (incl. mathematical notation) without any external grounding. Contrast to software development where what is available to train on is mostly the end result (code) rather than the reasoning that got you there, and there is also a large "experimental" aspect - what happens in the real world when you run the produced artifact.
OpenAI sat on the results so they could drop 10 at a time. It's rumored that they are sitting more results: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/513818/a-serious-challeng...
So not only are we not going to get boatloads of results, we're only get as many results as necessary for OpenAI to market their models.
What I'm talking about is the way OpenAI have handled this. They are in the business of artificial intelligence, striving to create human-level, or even super-human intelligence, and telling us what a wonderful future this will create.
Shouldn't they be celebrating intelligence, especially human intelligence which is what they have bottled here?! LLMs are themselves minimally intelligent - they are primarily regurgitating human intelligence. Without their human training data, these systems would be nothing.
Let's see OpenAI build "GPTZero", an actually intelligent system, that learns for itself, learns language and mathematics from nothing like a baby, then I feel they'd have the right to minimize and cheapen the achievement if they chose to (unlikely). As it is, all they have is a predictor, utterly dependent on HUMAN intelligence, and it would be more becoming of them to acknowledge this by paying a bit more deference and respect to the people who enabled them to build what they have.
FWIW I am not a mathematician.
You need to be at a select few institutions to avoid these safety features, which I'm not. University needs to sign some stuff but I that's outside my control.
We hacked 3 companies and tripple blame the tool! We are even cooler!
We hacked companies amd therefore other peoples models need to be restricted! See, us accidentally pointing a hacking tool on others proove we are the only ones that can be trusted with the tool!
> “GPT solved a math problem” -> “Claude solved a math problem” -> “GPT escaped the sandbox” -> “Claude escaped the sandbox” -> …
It s like a rich man showing off his car collection.