8 ms·

Waiting for comments saying that LLMs can't produce anything new and general goalpost moving.

qsera 2mo ago
From the post lol >So I wouldn't really say that this result is using or creating some fundamentally new techniques in convex geometry or optimization theory. What this means from my perspective is that if a result is attainable with existing techniques, modern AI methods will be able to solve those problems. I don't think researchers in math/TCS will be made obsolete, but I think it will instead no longer make sense to work on any low-hanging, or even medium-hanging (you know what I mean) fruit. We'll be needed for problems where actual novel approaches are needed.
- monster_truck 2mo ago
  so it seems like The New Big Question In Math is How's It Hanging, Brother?
- WA 2mo ago
  If knowledge is a Swiss cheese, LLMs can help fill the holes, but not make the cheese bigger.
  - peddling-brink 2mo ago
    Today maybe. I disagree in the long term. While they’ll never have the same subjective experience as humans, what stops an LLM from applying similar lines of thought* in a manner that results in a novel conjecture? They are prediction machines, and so are we in a way. We can give them nearly limitless resources to scale their predictive capabilities. We have billions of years of training baked in. They distill directly from our knowledge and can walk down paths that no human has before. It’s silly to say they’ll never do anything novel. At their current capabilities, it sounds like they are already capable of being a specific type is research assistant. What will that look like in 10-20 years?
    - seiferteric 2mo ago
      They also have ability to go deep and wide in a way that humans just can't. We have limits, get tired, distracted and biased where AI does not. I think there a lot of problem where all the information needed to solve them is there, but we just can't put the pieces together. Like no matter how many people you throw at some problems, you hit human limits and more people won't help, but AI will because it is just relentless.
      - qsera 2mo ago
        >biased where AI does not. AI can be totally biased... The fact that it can spout bullshit all day long to a human who can be tired and would actually act on the said bullshit, is not very comforting... For example, an LLM could confidently declare something a tired human would take as a fact, but would backfire in a real world.
        seiferteric 2mo ago
        Not really the kind of biased I meant though. There was a recent article about a AI disproving I think an Erdos conjecture by doing similar things humans have tried, but it was much messier and less "beautiful". I think it is a common bias in science and math that things should be "beautiful" but there is no real reason to think that.
    - qarl2 2mo ago
      > While they’ll never have the same subjective experience as humans You state this as a fact - are you aware the question is unresolved? EDIT: I'd love to know why you're downvoting me for stating a known fact.
      - skeledrew 2mo ago
        Fear spreads.
      - peddling-brink 2mo ago
        Ok, I guess never is a real long time and eventually when we merge our consciousness with the machines we may have the same subjective experience. I can confidently state that GPT-5.6 Sol is not experiencing the same reality as me. They _might_ be "experiencing" and I personally think they are, but their reality and experience is not the same as ours.
  - ben_w 2mo ago
    Famously, all of maths is axioms and tautologies, so I'm not sure this will assuage any professional mathematicians currently having an existential crisis. Maths was already infinite, it's still infinite, but who wants to spend all their lives changing rooms inside Hilbert's Hotel?
- throw310822 2mo ago
  The author explains he's an expert in the domain and that he had worked sporadically on the problem for about a year, also with the help of previous LLMs. So whatever he means by "I wouldn't really say that this result is using or creating some fundamentally new techniques" it doesn't mean that the result was trivial. Also, says it might not make sense to work on low or even medium hanging fruits in the future- and I bet that's by far the largest share of work for most mathematicians. Sure, it's not a breakthrough that opens new roads in mathematics- is this where the goalpost has moved now?
- tripleee 2mo ago
  this is a fairly bleak outlook even when you're trying to make it sound the opposite. Only the cream of the crop talent will have value going on? Most of us aren't Terence Tao
greenhat76 2mo ago
Oh brother I can tell you didn't read the entire article.
qarl2 2mo ago
HEH. Don't know why you're getting downvoted. It's painfully obvious that there is a vicious AI backlash now, where every amazing advancement is met with denial and loathing. Oh wait, sorry, I do know why you're getting downvoted. Fear.
- piloto_ciego 2mo ago
  A lot of people who thought they were special and “better” than mere blue-collar workers are realizing that in fact;l they are the same just working with a different medium.
  - qarl2 2mo ago
    I see a trend line from anti-AI back to anti-evolution to vitalism all the way to Galileo. Humans have a deep need to be special magic flowers - and they can't stand it when science eventually shows them they're not.
    - emp17344 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - qarl2 2mo ago
        I hope you understand you're proving my point. Ad hominem doesn't fly well around here.
    - dudul 2mo ago
      Humans just want to be able to work and feed their families. Notice how this is something that is never addressed for example in Asimov's writings where robots do everything. How do people do anything to be able to afford these robots? How do Solarians make money to maintain their massively gigantic estates? It is never explained, but we always jump straight to the "robots do everything, everything is free, nobody works". How about the in between?

qsera 2mo ago

From the post lol >So I wouldn't really say that this result is using or creating some fundamentally new techniques in convex geometry or optimization theory. What this means from my perspective is that if a result is attainable with existing techniques, modern AI methods will be able to solve those problems. I don't think researchers in math/TCS will be made obsolete, but I think it will instead no longer make sense to work on any low-hanging, or even medium-hanging (you know what I mean) fruit. We'll be needed for problems where actual novel approaches are needed.

monster_truck 2mo ago
so it seems like The New Big Question In Math is How's It Hanging, Brother?
WA 2mo ago
If knowledge is a Swiss cheese, LLMs can help fill the holes, but not make the cheese bigger.
- peddling-brink 2mo ago
  Today maybe. I disagree in the long term. While they’ll never have the same subjective experience as humans, what stops an LLM from applying similar lines of thought* in a manner that results in a novel conjecture? They are prediction machines, and so are we in a way. We can give them nearly limitless resources to scale their predictive capabilities. We have billions of years of training baked in. They distill directly from our knowledge and can walk down paths that no human has before. It’s silly to say they’ll never do anything novel. At their current capabilities, it sounds like they are already capable of being a specific type is research assistant. What will that look like in 10-20 years?
  - seiferteric 2mo ago
    They also have ability to go deep and wide in a way that humans just can't. We have limits, get tired, distracted and biased where AI does not. I think there a lot of problem where all the information needed to solve them is there, but we just can't put the pieces together. Like no matter how many people you throw at some problems, you hit human limits and more people won't help, but AI will because it is just relentless.
    - qsera 2mo ago
      >biased where AI does not. AI can be totally biased... The fact that it can spout bullshit all day long to a human who can be tired and would actually act on the said bullshit, is not very comforting... For example, an LLM could confidently declare something a tired human would take as a fact, but would backfire in a real world.
      - seiferteric 2mo ago
        Not really the kind of biased I meant though. There was a recent article about a AI disproving I think an Erdos conjecture by doing similar things humans have tried, but it was much messier and less "beautiful". I think it is a common bias in science and math that things should be "beautiful" but there is no real reason to think that.
  - qarl2 2mo ago
    > While they’ll never have the same subjective experience as humans You state this as a fact - are you aware the question is unresolved? EDIT: I'd love to know why you're downvoting me for stating a known fact.
    - skeledrew 2mo ago
      Fear spreads.
    - peddling-brink 2mo ago
      Ok, I guess never is a real long time and eventually when we merge our consciousness with the machines we may have the same subjective experience. I can confidently state that GPT-5.6 Sol is not experiencing the same reality as me. They _might_ be "experiencing" and I personally think they are, but their reality and experience is not the same as ours.
- ben_w 2mo ago
  Famously, all of maths is axioms and tautologies, so I'm not sure this will assuage any professional mathematicians currently having an existential crisis. Maths was already infinite, it's still infinite, but who wants to spend all their lives changing rooms inside Hilbert's Hotel?
throw310822 2mo ago
The author explains he's an expert in the domain and that he had worked sporadically on the problem for about a year, also with the help of previous LLMs. So whatever he means by "I wouldn't really say that this result is using or creating some fundamentally new techniques" it doesn't mean that the result was trivial. Also, says it might not make sense to work on low or even medium hanging fruits in the future- and I bet that's by far the largest share of work for most mathematicians. Sure, it's not a breakthrough that opens new roads in mathematics- is this where the goalpost has moved now?
tripleee 2mo ago
this is a fairly bleak outlook even when you're trying to make it sound the opposite. Only the cream of the crop talent will have value going on? Most of us aren't Terence Tao

greenhat76 2mo ago

Oh brother I can tell you didn't read the entire article.

qarl2 2mo ago

HEH. Don't know why you're getting downvoted. It's painfully obvious that there is a vicious AI backlash now, where every amazing advancement is met with denial and loathing. Oh wait, sorry, I do know why you're getting downvoted. Fear.

piloto_ciego 2mo ago
A lot of people who thought they were special and “better” than mere blue-collar workers are realizing that in fact;l they are the same just working with a different medium.
- qarl2 2mo ago
  I see a trend line from anti-AI back to anti-evolution to vitalism all the way to Galileo. Humans have a deep need to be special magic flowers - and they can't stand it when science eventually shows them they're not.
  - emp17344 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - qarl2 2mo ago
      I hope you understand you're proving my point. Ad hominem doesn't fly well around here.
  - dudul 2mo ago
    Humans just want to be able to work and feed their families. Notice how this is something that is never addressed for example in Asimov's writings where robots do everything. How do people do anything to be able to afford these robots? How do Solarians make money to maintain their massively gigantic estates? It is never explained, but we always jump straight to the "robots do everything, everything is free, nobody works". How about the in between?