5 ms·

This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data

This is copium. Humans worked on it, but they didn't come close to actually solving it. Even if you do the whole "the AI looked at material in its training data" thing, modern AI can make their own math data to train on with RLVF. This new model is legitimately on a different plane of existence from modern mathematicians.

unrented7977 9d ago
Using the word "copium" is a "if you smelt it you dealt it" type of deal.
imjonse 9d ago
it should be able to solve some of the five left Millenium Prize problems then in a few weeks.
- scotty79 9d ago
  Why in weeks, not months or years?
- weatherlite 9d ago
  Probably will solve a couple more at least in the coming year , no ? Why wouldn't it ?
znnajdla 9d ago
My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you think it was the AI that did it, you have access to the exact same ChatGPT.
- matteoraso 9d ago
  I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".
  - znnajdla 8d ago
    I think you're not aware of the specifics of this case. A mathematician worked on the prompts for over a year to get this proof. Look up the details.
- arw0n 8d ago
  We don't know what the prompts were though. Terence Tao showed of some of his, and they are indeed huge, with lots of context, things that might work, things he knows don't etc. What we do know about this, is that 10k agents worked together on this. The initial prompt, while probably still very relevant, would get diluted over time. We simply don't know the level of inolvement of humans in reaching this proof.
  - znnajdla 8d ago
    My point is if you're not a mathematician on the level of Terence Tao you wouldn't have been able to get this result. Thus, AI cannot be credited with the result. Because it's not AI that did it, it's the human that used it as a tool to get the result.

unrented7977 9d ago

Using the word "copium" is a "if you smelt it you dealt it" type of deal.

imjonse 9d ago

it should be able to solve some of the five left Millenium Prize problems then in a few weeks.

scotty79 9d ago
Why in weeks, not months or years?
weatherlite 9d ago
Probably will solve a couple more at least in the coming year , no ? Why wouldn't it ?

znnajdla 9d ago

My point is, the AI could not have done what it did without the skilled mathemetician prompting it. It was just a tool in the hands of the human that did it. And that was a very skilled human. Unless you're a professional mathematician, you cannot get the same result even if you use the same AI model. That's the proof that it's the human's work, not the AI. Why don't you try getting a Millennium Prize then? If you think it was the AI that did it, you have access to the exact same ChatGPT.

matteoraso 9d ago
I don't have access to the exact agent OpenAI used, and I certainly don't have access to the enormous amount of tokens that were used. That being said, I doubt there was some advanced prompting technique going on here. We've seen AI proofs with the prompts attached, and it's pretty basic stuff like "don't give up".
- znnajdla 8d ago
  I think you're not aware of the specifics of this case. A mathematician worked on the prompts for over a year to get this proof. Look up the details.
arw0n 8d ago
We don't know what the prompts were though. Terence Tao showed of some of his, and they are indeed huge, with lots of context, things that might work, things he knows don't etc. What we do know about this, is that 10k agents worked together on this. The initial prompt, while probably still very relevant, would get diluted over time. We simply don't know the level of inolvement of humans in reaching this proof.
- znnajdla 8d ago
  My point is if you're not a mathematician on the level of Terence Tao you wouldn't have been able to get this result. Thus, AI cannot be credited with the result. Because it's not AI that did it, it's the human that used it as a tool to get the result.