6 ms·

If the goal is to accomplish something then why limit yourself with available tools? I’m not a full on AI optimist but it is absolutely the most powerful tool

If the goal is to accomplish something then why limit yourself with available tools? I’m not a full on AI optimist but it is absolutely the most powerful tool in a host of applications. From a Hackathon perspective, obviously in the 90s it was much more unorganized, but the same ethos existed. Use all available tools to accomplish the goal/task, it’s where a lot of incredible learning came out of. The same will hopefully happen in scenarios like this one

loloquwowndueo 9d ago
If the goal is to run 42km why limit yourself? Use a car and win.
- falcor84 9d ago
  But the goal here is not to run 42km; to stay with the outdoors metaphor, it's more like deciding where and how to set up a bivouac - use whatever tools you have at your disposal to analyze the area you're in, and find the best site to stay in overnight.
a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
It seems like making progress on math is letting the AI run fully autonomously for a few days, occasionally asking it to keep going. I'm not sure people need to organize a mathathon to wait for a computer to give a printout. They mainly need tokens.
- charlieyu1 9d ago
  Are they actually autonomous? I’d say subject knowledge at the prompt stage plays a large part towards getting proper results
  - a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
    When Claude made progress on the Riemann conjecture, here are the kind of prompts used: > Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress. And left it for a long time. Jarred isn't a mathematician, he's the maintainer of a janky JavaScript environment. Here's the transcript: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/8a0d1add3c637b858a9a181e98c40e9548c3f44f.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/8a0d1add3c637b858a9a181e98c40e...
  - hgoel 9d ago
    Prompting for some of the results was almost the "Computer, do a breakthrough. Make no mistakes." meme. Just someone telling the model to keep trying a couple of times. Unfortunately we don't actually know what kind of prompting was done for the more prominent results.
    - charlieyu1 9d ago
      It’s definitely not how I work, I’d need to read the model responses and set a direction for the model to go
      - deleted 9d ago
        [deleted]
      - hgoel 9d ago
        Same here, it's one thing if I'm just screwing around, but if I'm trying to do anything serious, I need to at least have a handle on what it's doing, and, when thinking traces are available, keeping track of any logical errors in the model's reasoning.
        a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
        you know the thinking traces are redacted and summarized using another model, right? The actual thinking trace looks something like: 7♣-removal-IS-the-prerequisite-for-10♠/9♥!!)-⟹-OVERLAP-(ii)+(iv):-{6♠ J♦ 9♥ 2♣}-=-FOUR--—-UNLESS-7♣'s-seat-8♥-...-and-2♣-drains-only-at-crack-:-⟹-2♣-celled-+-9♥-celled-simultaneously-UNAVOIDABLE-in-t8-dig--—-BREAK:-9♥-drains-to-10♠-THE-MOMENT-10♠-is-free:-t8-dig-order:-[K♣→t2]-[2♣→cell]-[7♣→8♥-:-8♥-WHERE:-post-chunk-9♠-:-chunk-⟸-K♣--done-:-ORDER:-K♣→t2,-CHUNK→K♣-(cap-4!!:-cells-then:-{6♠ J♦ 9♥}-FULL--chunk-cap-=-1--—-F-F-F-F-F.-—-chunk-BEFORE-9♥-celling?!-:-9♥-celled-at-t1-dig-⟸-needed-for-5♣-⟸-4♥3♣-⟸-t2-dig-⟸-K♣-seat-⟸-chunk-:-⟹-chunkAFTER-9♥-celling-FORCED--:-chunk-cap-with-{6♠ J♦ 9♥}:-1--—-—-J♦-THE-NEW-CANCER.-—-⟹-J♦-celling-DELAYED-till-after-chunk?! :-J♦'s-celling-was-for-J♥→Q♠-(5♦-access-for-4♣):-DELAY-4♣-resolution:-4♣→CELLearly-(as-always)-then-4♣-cell→5♦-LATER-when-5♦-frees-!!!:-cells-rotation:-4♣-celled-[t2-dig-…-5♦-freed]:-5♦-freed-⟸-J♥→Q♠-⟸-J♦-celled-:-⟹-{6♠, 4♣, J♦}-overlap-window-until-4♣→5♦-drains:-then-{6♠ J♦}+1-rotator-:-—-AND-9♥?!-9♥-celled-[t1-dig…]:-OVERLAP-{6♠ 4♣ 9♥}-before-J♦-even-:-⟹-rotator-slot-SINGLE:-timeline-:-(1)-{6♠}+2:-…-(2)-+9♥-(t1-dig):-{6♠ 9♥}+1:-(3)-+4♣-(t2-dig):-{6♠ 9♥ 4♣}-FULL-:-(4)-NEED:-t6-dig-(9♦8♠→10♣--no-cell;-8♥→CELL--FULL)--—-8♥-alternative-seat-pre-chunk:-NONE-—-.-⟹-⟹-THE-TRIANGLE-{9♥ 4♣ 8♥}-verdammt.-—-⟹-dig-t6-BEFORE-t2?!:-(3')-+8♥:-{6♠ 9♥ 8♥}-FULL:-J♥→Q♠-⟸-J♦-cell--FULL--AAAAAAAAAAAARGH. Citation: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c342ee809620.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3..., section 6.2.2 You're not going to get a handle on what it's doing. The thinking traces are there to make you feel better about yourself.
- jhonof 9d ago
  I think the purpose of an event like this would be to optimize the process so that it isn't just occasionally asking an AI to keep going.
  - a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
    That sounds like adding a bottleneck, unless you mean writing a harness that automatically asks the model to keep going, so that there's no humans involved at all?
- MostlyStable 9d ago
  That's how several major AI advancements have happened. I have seen no evidence that that is the fastest way to make progress right now. I expect that, much like chess engines, it will not take too long before AI is significantly better than AI + human. But right now, my bet is that we are still safely within the window where an AI + human mathematician team is still better than AI alone (at least for the case where the human has learned how to work effectively with the partner....something that this event could possible be good for teaching).
  - a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
    I suspect that the best progress will be made by a team that purely spends their time taking a list of open problems and promoting "solve <problem>", without actually trying to understand anything. Just keep as many problems in flight as you can across as many sessions as you can. You can probably ask the AI to come up with a list of problems itself, and rank them by the likelihood of progress.
    - youoy 9d ago
      Then 20 years go by and you wake up one day with questions that you cannot get out of your mind: why did I start prompting the LLM for? Why did I need these random proofs for? What do i do with my repo with 2billion lines of Lean?
Fraterkes 9d ago
Did you read the article? This is not a hackathon where you build software, it’s one where you’re trying to get a model to make progress on a frontier math problem. The point is that that activity may not map well onto the shape of a hackathon
thatseasy 9d ago
> why limit yourself with available tools Because the companies that run frontier models are malevolent by every metric. They are destroying the environment, especially those in neighborhoods of low income people. They are empowering their owners who are some of the most deplorable and duplicitous people living. They are destroying personal compute to avoid competition with local models by buying all computer components with “promised money” and forcing their P into AI. They stole the entire creative output of humanity and are trying to sell it back to us. They are only good for giving wealth access to skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth. They are being used to kill in war and for surveillance. Seriously why would you use them? Your use only emboldens them; making you complicit in their nefarious success. I for one, am one who walks away from Omelas.

loloquwowndueo 9d ago

If the goal is to run 42km why limit yourself? Use a car and win.

falcor84 9d ago
But the goal here is not to run 42km; to stay with the outdoors metaphor, it's more like deciding where and how to set up a bivouac - use whatever tools you have at your disposal to analyze the area you're in, and find the best site to stay in overnight.

a2ff6eeb0 9d ago

It seems like making progress on math is letting the AI run fully autonomously for a few days, occasionally asking it to keep going. I'm not sure people need to organize a mathathon to wait for a computer to give a printout. They mainly need tokens.

charlieyu1 9d ago
Are they actually autonomous? I’d say subject knowledge at the prompt stage plays a large part towards getting proper results
- a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
  When Claude made progress on the Riemann conjecture, here are the kind of prompts used: > Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress. And left it for a long time. Jarred isn't a mathematician, he's the maintainer of a janky JavaScript environment. Here's the transcript: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/8a0d1add3c637b858a9a181e98c40e9548c3f44f.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/8a0d1add3c637b858a9a181e98c40e...
- hgoel 9d ago
  Prompting for some of the results was almost the "Computer, do a breakthrough. Make no mistakes." meme. Just someone telling the model to keep trying a couple of times. Unfortunately we don't actually know what kind of prompting was done for the more prominent results.
  - charlieyu1 9d ago
    It’s definitely not how I work, I’d need to read the model responses and set a direction for the model to go
    - deleted 9d ago
      [deleted]
    - hgoel 9d ago
      Same here, it's one thing if I'm just screwing around, but if I'm trying to do anything serious, I need to at least have a handle on what it's doing, and, when thinking traces are available, keeping track of any logical errors in the model's reasoning.
      - a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
        you know the thinking traces are redacted and summarized using another model, right? The actual thinking trace looks something like: 7♣-removal-IS-the-prerequisite-for-10♠/9♥!!)-⟹-OVERLAP-(ii)+(iv):-{6♠ J♦ 9♥ 2♣}-=-FOUR--—-UNLESS-7♣'s-seat-8♥-...-and-2♣-drains-only-at-crack-:-⟹-2♣-celled-+-9♥-celled-simultaneously-UNAVOIDABLE-in-t8-dig--—-BREAK:-9♥-drains-to-10♠-THE-MOMENT-10♠-is-free:-t8-dig-order:-[K♣→t2]-[2♣→cell]-[7♣→8♥-:-8♥-WHERE:-post-chunk-9♠-:-chunk-⟸-K♣--done-:-ORDER:-K♣→t2,-CHUNK→K♣-(cap-4!!:-cells-then:-{6♠ J♦ 9♥}-FULL--chunk-cap-=-1--—-F-F-F-F-F.-—-chunk-BEFORE-9♥-celling?!-:-9♥-celled-at-t1-dig-⟸-needed-for-5♣-⟸-4♥3♣-⟸-t2-dig-⟸-K♣-seat-⟸-chunk-:-⟹-chunkAFTER-9♥-celling-FORCED--:-chunk-cap-with-{6♠ J♦ 9♥}:-1--—-—-J♦-THE-NEW-CANCER.-—-⟹-J♦-celling-DELAYED-till-after-chunk?! :-J♦'s-celling-was-for-J♥→Q♠-(5♦-access-for-4♣):-DELAY-4♣-resolution:-4♣→CELLearly-(as-always)-then-4♣-cell→5♦-LATER-when-5♦-frees-!!!:-cells-rotation:-4♣-celled-[t2-dig-…-5♦-freed]:-5♦-freed-⟸-J♥→Q♠-⟸-J♦-celled-:-⟹-{6♠, 4♣, J♦}-overlap-window-until-4♣→5♦-drains:-then-{6♠ J♦}+1-rotator-:-—-AND-9♥?!-9♥-celled-[t1-dig…]:-OVERLAP-{6♠ 4♣ 9♥}-before-J♦-even-:-⟹-rotator-slot-SINGLE:-timeline-:-(1)-{6♠}+2:-…-(2)-+9♥-(t1-dig):-{6♠ 9♥}+1:-(3)-+4♣-(t2-dig):-{6♠ 9♥ 4♣}-FULL-:-(4)-NEED:-t6-dig-(9♦8♠→10♣--no-cell;-8♥→CELL--FULL)--—-8♥-alternative-seat-pre-chunk:-NONE-—-.-⟹-⟹-THE-TRIANGLE-{9♥ 4♣ 8♥}-verdammt.-—-⟹-dig-t6-BEFORE-t2?!:-(3')-+8♥:-{6♠ 9♥ 8♥}-FULL:-J♥→Q♠-⟸-J♦-cell--FULL--AAAAAAAAAAAARGH. Citation: https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c342ee809620.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/d00db56fa754a1b115b6dd7cb2e3c3..., section 6.2.2 You're not going to get a handle on what it's doing. The thinking traces are there to make you feel better about yourself.
jhonof 9d ago
I think the purpose of an event like this would be to optimize the process so that it isn't just occasionally asking an AI to keep going.
- a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
  That sounds like adding a bottleneck, unless you mean writing a harness that automatically asks the model to keep going, so that there's no humans involved at all?
MostlyStable 9d ago
That's how several major AI advancements have happened. I have seen no evidence that that is the fastest way to make progress right now. I expect that, much like chess engines, it will not take too long before AI is significantly better than AI + human. But right now, my bet is that we are still safely within the window where an AI + human mathematician team is still better than AI alone (at least for the case where the human has learned how to work effectively with the partner....something that this event could possible be good for teaching).
- a2ff6eeb0 9d ago
  I suspect that the best progress will be made by a team that purely spends their time taking a list of open problems and promoting "solve <problem>", without actually trying to understand anything. Just keep as many problems in flight as you can across as many sessions as you can. You can probably ask the AI to come up with a list of problems itself, and rank them by the likelihood of progress.
  - youoy 9d ago
    Then 20 years go by and you wake up one day with questions that you cannot get out of your mind: why did I start prompting the LLM for? Why did I need these random proofs for? What do i do with my repo with 2billion lines of Lean?

Fraterkes 9d ago

Did you read the article? This is not a hackathon where you build software, it’s one where you’re trying to get a model to make progress on a frontier math problem. The point is that that activity may not map well onto the shape of a hackathon

thatseasy 9d ago

> why limit yourself with available tools Because the companies that run frontier models are malevolent by every metric. They are destroying the environment, especially those in neighborhoods of low income people. They are empowering their owners who are some of the most deplorable and duplicitous people living. They are destroying personal compute to avoid competition with local models by buying all computer components with “promised money” and forcing their P into AI. They stole the entire creative output of humanity and are trying to sell it back to us. They are only good for giving wealth access to skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth. They are being used to kill in war and for surveillance. Seriously why would you use them? Your use only emboldens them; making you complicit in their nefarious success. I for one, am one who walks away from Omelas.