famouswaffles

6 ms·

1.
by famouswaffles 3d ago
If humans didn't need whack-a-mole alignment, the law system wouldn't exist, so i guess there's no intelligence there either.
2.
by famouswaffles 4d ago
It's solved in that we have had grossly superhuman capabilities for some time. It's not interesting for frontier labs. I suspect you understand this and the greater point so why be needlessly pedantic ?
3.
by famouswaffles 4d ago
Right but we're talking about a single subject here - mathematics that labs are incentivized to keep improving for some time. >e.g. If someone said "this is the worst they'll ever be" in response to some writing with
4.
by famouswaffles 4d ago
It doesn't ring true and it never rang true. He was wrong in 2022 and he'd be wrong today. He had (and likely still has) a wrong model of LLMs. Not exaggerating 2022 capabilities and having a model so wrong you're out of whac
5.
by famouswaffles 4d ago
>I suppose you are suggesting that research mathematicians are either over-qualified mathematically and/or under-qualified in ability to teach, but it seems pretty clear that universities prefer to hire domain experts whose reputati
6.
by famouswaffles 4d ago
>Most research mathematicians are employed as academics, and it's hard to see universities replacing teaching staff with AI even if that were possible. If universities come to only need research mathematicians for teaching ability,
7.
by famouswaffles 4d ago
>Nah the AI won't replace coders or mathematicians until it can maintain codebases/knowledge long term. Okay...you understand that are training for this and it has gotten much much better at doing this over the years ? You shou
8.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
If you're in OpenAI's position, the PR from the group you're disrupting is rarely relevant. People from the outside will (correctly or not) look at this as "Mathematicians don't want OpenAI to solve problems to keep
9.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
They aren't going to sit on millenium solutions regardless (so if Hodge and /or BSD is really done it will get announced especially because of the baseless accusations), and they aren't going to stop trying to solve P/NP
10.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
I mean if it's impossible to prove then the bet is still valid right ? The Clay institute won't be giving out any prize still in that case.
11.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
None of the frontier labs care about Chess as it's already a solved problem. If they did, the models would be much better. It's really not that hard. Google has a paper on grandmaster level chess without search from transformers.
12.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
Yes. This is the worst the models will ever be. Perhaps you should start paying attention to that now.
13.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
It's really not that big. Yeah Navier-Stokes was easier than Riemann but that's not really the issue. AI has and will improve at a much greater rate than human mathematicians. So it's really a question of if AI gets good enou
14.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
>That said, that’s probably just because of the drama miring their most recent one. After 2 I don’t see why they’d bother anymore. P/NP and the Riemann Hypothesis are part of the milllenium problems. They will 100% keep trying to cr
15.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
They aren't going to stop at one, that's for sure. They already claimed they have "made substantial progress" on another millenium problem. Let's say they bag another one (Hodge and/or BSD according to the rumo
16.
by famouswaffles 5d ago
>Are you implying that OpenAI using someones unpublished research without their permission to solve an career defining math problem Good thing they never did that then
17.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
Fair enough then. I had only seen some earlier comments.
18.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
>If you read the PDF release by Buckmaster, apparently the initial claim from Brubeck was that there as very little human input involved, then as the call progressed more and more people popped up that has been involved with it. As it se
19.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
I put it like that because of Brubeck's own words on the matter. You're acting like we've gotten email receipts here. I'm not really interested in going over a he-said she-said about strangers.
20.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
>Better luck next time OpenAI Well it looks like they will announce at least one other millenium solution soon. In the same link they say they have "made substantial progress" on another millenium problem. The rumor mill before
21.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
1. I would agree if the rumours were that some mathematician(s) had solved them, but the rumors alleged it was Anthropic. I don't really see what the big deal was. They had a new model that was going along great and wanted to test its
22.
by famouswaffles 6d ago
OpenAI have come out and said: >The Wednesday evening statement from OpenAI was more emphatic: “We can say categorically that it is impossible for Dr. Buckmaster’s Codex prompts over the last two months to have influenced the system in a
23.
by famouswaffles 7d ago
Because it is. From OpenAI 9.2.1 CoT Controllability We find that GPT-6 Astra’s CoT controllability is substantially higher than that of GPT-5.6 Sol and GPT-5.5 Thinking (Figure 28)....For example, among CoTs between 750 and 1,250 tokens lo
24.
by famouswaffles 7d ago
There's latent space thinking inside the model and then there's the thinking chain of thought words you see the model output. Of course the former is still happening even when you say 'don't think about it' but the
25.
by famouswaffles 7d ago
This one's even better. Using Canva https://x.com/iam_zachi/status/2095992132620136677
26.
by famouswaffles 7d ago
It can lead to hidden reasoning, if the looping allows it to stuff enough information outside visible CoT. Open AI demostrates such an ability by asking it to solve problems while thinking about something else entirely. All the other models
27.
by famouswaffles 7d ago
>Oh sure; I don't think anyone is denying that larger issue? But does it have anything to do with looping? If the model has significantly more ability to stuff away information outside visible reasoning than every other model includ
28.
by famouswaffles 8d ago
>made it sound like it was some special new scary thing that made train-of-thought monitoring harder to do. It's not a "scary new thing" but ultimately no-one knows exactly how OpenAI have implemented looping. You might no
29.
by famouswaffles 8d ago
Yes they know the timelines, which they've explained. No they don't know exactly what they train on. Even I don't, and my little experiments are nowhere near OpenAI scale. This is par the course for ML. Plus it would kind of
30.
by famouswaffles 8d ago
Okay. I was just confused.

More ›