eru

6 ms·

1.
by eru 3d ago
Maybe. But the prestige requires that the Clay people have offered the prize money, it doesn't require that OpenAI claims the prize money.
2.
by eru 3d ago
Well, I guess we can say that human researchers have a certain probability of solving problems like this?
3.
by eru 3d ago
We know that it did.
4.
by eru 3d ago
> We rely on mathematicians, peer review, and letting the scientific process run its course. Granted for the sake of argument. But for this process, there's no requirement anyone from Clay needs to be involved, nor that anything ha
5.
by eru 4d ago
I really liked codex in the last few weeks, especially its ability to clean up after Claude's (prose) messes and do reviews. But in the last few days something seems to have happened that made Codex's models massively stupider (fo
6.
by eru 4d ago
Maybe, though that's another kind of progress in itself. Very impressive progress!
7.
by eru 4d ago
Of course, you get new capabilities. Why wouldn't you? Yes, you might not get new human capabilities. But your applications still work better.
8.
by eru 4d ago
> A right to privacy in society would be amazing (see the UN Declararion of Human Rights). AI is eroding this. This has nothing to do with mathematics. > So I tried but I’m not very impressed with my list. Do you have one? Look into o
9.
by eru 4d ago
There's lots of math in eg operations research.
10.
by eru 4d ago
> In math, the journey is often more important than the destination. The process of developing a proof may uncover new mathematical techniques, some of which may have practical applications in other fields. Sure. And AIs can use ideas f
11.
by eru 4d ago
Central banks can create an unlimited amount of money, if necessary. The limit is inflation.
12.
by eru 4d ago
If only getting a paid gig for shilling was as easy as people always assume.
13.
by eru 4d ago
What is 'asking the right questions' supposed to mean? I am saying that applications supplied and supply an inexhaustible amount of good problems and questions to consider. Purely theoretical concerns also supply some questions,
14.
by eru 4d ago
Offshoring worked really well. So I don't see the problem in repeating something like that success story.
15.
by eru 4d ago
Exponential growth in hardware's capabilities, like we are used to, means that several orders of magnitude are a matter of a relatively short time.
16.
by eru 4d ago
So far we haven't seen much of that consolidation. And a lot of people are using trailing edge models just fine already. > [...] but the level of quality that is considered essential for work will always stay pinned at "near-fr
17.
by eru 4d ago
> What I feel a bit annoyed by, and what I feel obviously LLM-run ablations like this fail to capture, is any kind of reflection around previous research or any kind of proof that this is the best you can do. At least the former is easy:
18.
by eru 4d ago
It was just the first example that stuck out to me. I didn't do an exhaustive check to look for the worst offender.
19.
by eru 4d ago
> In my experience, AI tends to avoid the first person, instead writing from a passive observer or even using sentences without verbs. Not my experience with Claude at all. Which AIs are you talking about?
20.
by eru 4d ago
> It didn't work, and why it didn't work turned out to be more interesting than the policy would have been. Spoken like a true Claude. Snarking aside, I am glad that our AI agents make it cheap enough to do these experiments an
21.
by eru 4d ago
As I said, these people exist. And math is fun! But it's far from the only reason people in general do and have done math.
22.
by eru 4d ago
Huh? The resolution of Navier Stokes won't have much of an effect, yes. There's lots of problems like that. Eg if we prove P != NP, that won't have much of an immediate effect either. However, there's also plenty of pr
23.
by eru 4d ago
Huh? Where do I say that AI needs to solve every intellectual problem? For all we know, P vs NP will never be resolved neither by human nor AI, and the world will just keep turning.
24.
by eru 4d ago
Yes. And for most applications it's more important that the open models get better in absolute terms and perhaps that they are competitive on a per-Watt basis.
25.
by eru 4d ago
You can enjoy math, but that was never the only reason people in general did math. (It was the only reason for some people, sure.)
26.
by eru 4d ago
Applications don't care about Navier Stokes, yes. But they care about eg proving crytographics secure, or proving that your algorithm doesn't blow up under adversarial input.
27.
by eru 4d ago
> When cars made horses obsolete, it didn't go so well for horses. I'd guess horses today have on average a better life than back then.
28.
by eru 4d ago
Hasn't happened so far.
29.
by eru 4d ago
I grew up in Germany, but I got frames in UK and Singapore and Australia, too. Fielmann in Germany has been offering very reasonably priced glasses and frames for ages.
30.
by eru 4d ago
Well, Lean needs to get its act together to fix the bugs.

More ›