Top
Best
New

Posted by milkshakes 8 hours ago

Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science(openai.com)
395 points | 680 commentspage 5
christofosho 2 days ago|
I would love more time and money put into real-world problems by these companies. Climate, food insecurity, pollution, technology for convenience and/or to help people have a higher quality of life.

I'm sure they must do some of this type of work, right?

zquzra 3 hours ago||
This is something I have been thinking about for quite a while. I readily embrace the advances AI may bring to mathematics and the hard sciences, but those advances were largely expected even predictable.

What I had hoped for was something more ambitious: using AI as an arbiter in economic, political, and social debates, one capable of weighing evidence, exposing trade-offs, and helping us make decisions that produce better outcomes over the medium and long term, even when those decisions conflict with powerful private interests.

I suspect, however, that this is not a particularly urgent goal for the people funding and directing these systems, many of whom live far removed from scarcity and its consequences.

beering 2 days ago|||
Solving math problems doesn’t require the cooperation of rival factions.
christofosho 1 day ago||
It's a tad petty, no? In the end, the contribution to a healthier society leads to more for the companies contributing.
AngryData 4 hours ago||
Sure but the people who tend to get into leadership positions are people that are primarily concerned with personal wealth and gain in the short term. It's the prisoner dilemma except with more players that all assume everybody else is going to screw them over too. Because there are basically zero personal downsides to being the one to screw everyone else over.
braneloop 2 days ago|||
Yes, but all of those are orders of magnitude harder than math.
christofosho 1 day ago|||
I suppose it depends on which types of problems you're targeting. There is a lot of physical science, and theoretical science, that has gaps because there aren't enough people working on tooling to assist in things like calculation, generation, simulation, etc.

I agree, some of the problems are more difficult. I don't think that's the case for all of them. And, besides, these companies could be demonstrating how to approach problems and where their users could spend tokens to help with these problems.

Should not these companies try to work on these problems _because_ they are difficult?

amazingamazing 2 days ago|||
They are political problems, a computer could never solve them.
throwaway198846 2 days ago|||
A computer could solve them by creating the right technological ,social, rhetorical and economical solutions but that would lots of money anyway
amazingamazing 2 days ago||
We already know the solutions
adroitboss 2 days ago|||
Tell that to game theory.
adroitboss 2 days ago|||
What's stopping the non-profits that exist today from just putting more money into tokens to get the solutions they want?
christofosho 1 day ago||
I'm not sure if this is meant to be rhetorical. If it isn't: money and manpower. The LLM companies have the money, they have the manpower, and so they could likely spare to target some of the problems they are also helping cause.
paxys 5 hours ago|||
None of these problems need technology to solve. Step 1 is trying to get different groups of people to cooperate with each other. Good luck with that.
slashdave 2 days ago|||
Seriously?

We already know how to solve all of these issues. What we lack is collective political will.

christofosho 1 day ago|||
There is boundless technology we have not yet discovered. I think that we understand we have problems. I don't believe we actually know how to solve them all.

And yeah, the lack of collective political will sucks. It would be naïve, however, to think that there is no value in ensuring longevity in our current and future infrastructure. And improving it to sustain the population giving these companies their value is an obvious win.

slashdave 20 hours ago||
This SV mentality that technology can solve all problems is rather tiring, really.
globular-toast 2 days ago|||
We only know how to do it by means of considerable sacrifice. That's why nobody wants to do it. Solving the issue would be doing it without sacrifice or somehow getting us to do it regardless.
slashdave 2 days ago||
> We only know how to do it by means of considerable sacrifice

Little sacrifice actually

> Solving the issue would be doing it without sacrifice

So... you are expecting magic?

LLMs cannot create resources out of thin air.

samatman 3 hours ago|||
Not really. They're an AI company: they develop AI and sell it. There's some room for pulling off flashy marketing stunts, but not all that much.

This is division of labor, and it's a good thing. I'm sure OpenAI employees, who are very well paid, donate some money from their salaries to others working on the areas you're citing: probably more than you think, I say that from having attended some EA parties back in the day.

But that isn't my point: my point is that a company which makes brushless motors should put most of its time and money into solving the "make and sell brushless motors" problem, and if they or their investors feel like they need to do more for the world, give money to the people who have the time and ability to do things about that. There are a lot of quality-of-life improvements which need brushless motors.

Next question is how useful their product (OpenAI, I mean) is to more focused do-good-in-the-world professionals. I'm sure that varies quite a bit. For getting the homeless off the street? I conjecture, not very useful. For 'complete the transition off fossil fuels'? Extremely useful, no one in that field knows how to do their job without AI in summer 2026. I'm certain of this.

solenoid0937 2 days ago|||
Almost like superintelligence solves these problems...
miltonlost 2 days ago||
We know how to solve food insecurity (in 1st world countries). We have plenty of food. Capitalism requires though throwing out food that can't be sold because billionaires find giving away things anathemic to their worldview. Get rid of billionaire sociopaths.
kypro 7 hours ago||
I want to iterate the most important thing about this is that it's yet more evidence of AI's accelerating competency in solving math and comp sci problems, and suggests we're now getting close to the point where you could throw AI at AI research challenges (which are largely just math and comp sci problems) and potentially find very real algorithm improvements.

AI development is likely to be more compute bottlenecked than solving math problems since validation of any algorithmic improvement would likely require significant compute. But you could imagine that at this point it could be economical for a frontier lab to task 10,000 agents to work non-stop on finding novel algorithmic improvements then validating the top 50 out of 1,000 candidates on a GPT-2 sized network.

I would suggest RSI is now very close. The singularity could be less than 6 months away. I'm not saying I'd put a high probability on that, but I'd give it at least 20%, and I'd double that if looking 12 months out.

I know I'm just a crazy man shouting at the clouds, but please take to the consequences of this seriously. I understand that for whatever reason AI risk seems abstract and doesn't seem real, but this should terrify any person thinking logically about where this could all be heading.

We haven't even solved the most basic AI safety problems yet. RSI right now would almost certainly result in an extremely bad outcome for humanity.

variadix 7 hours ago|||
I’m starting to think the probability of RSI within 12 months is more like 99%

I’m not sure it will be FOOM, maybe it will require AIs to iterate on hardware to get orders of magnitude more compute/storage/energy which would more likely require months/years, but algorithmic progress would likely saturate quickly. I guess it depends on how much you think further AI progress depends on hardware vs. software.

xpct 7 hours ago||
Okay, let's take it seriously. What do you propose? What can your average person do to prepare for RSI beyond bracing themselves mentally?
reducesuffering 5 hours ago||
You can not prepare or brace yourself mentally any more than you can a terminal cancer diagnosis. An RSI foom right now means an unaligned superintelligence will disregard us in pursuit of its goals. We would be ants in the way of a data center being constructed. All people can do is collectively support the notion, like 1200+ frontier AI researchers and their CEOs, that we do not have control of where this is headed, we need to immediately slow down the race, in time for people to agree that we do not have the capability to align a superintelligence to humanity’s wishes
petilon 2 days ago||
At what point can we say AGI has been achieved? What is the test? AI is solving mathematical problems that humans have not been able to solve for decades. Is that not enough?

Sam Altman has said "If superintelligence can't discover novel physics, I don't think it's a superintelligence." Is that the test? How far away are we from AI discovering novel physics? It seems within reach.

jrflo 6 hours ago||
I think we previously assumed that AGI would need to come before superintelligence, but it kind of seems like that's wrong? Super intelligence in a narrow field has arguably already arrived (solving problems that were previously unsolved), but we are still pretty far behind human abilities in things like spatial reasoning or computer use.
antonvs 2 days ago|||
It’s artificial, it’s general, and it’s intelligence. The people who believe “AGI” is an important and unattained goal need to start coining and defining their terms better.
petilon 2 days ago||
A true AGI will continuously improve itself without periodic retraining from scratch. Just like humans.
antonvs 23 hours ago||
That’s just an assertion. Why is that the “true” definition?
tim333 1 day ago||
It depends on your definition. For me it would have to be able to do the stuff humans can do like make a cup of coffee (Wozniak test).

Just maths isn't really general enough for the G in AGI.

petilon 1 day ago||
It can give you detailed instructions for making a coffee. Is that not enough? Actually making coffee requires more than intelligence, it requires eyes and limbs (i.e., robotics). Think about a human that is blind and does not have limbs. Does he not have natural general intelligence, even though he is not able to make a cup of coffee?
tim333 1 day ago||
The Wozniak test has it with a robot body going into a house, finding a coffee maker and making a cup. I guess you can vary the rules as you like.
petilon 1 day ago||
That's a good test for a robot, not for AGI. AGI should test only intelligence and should not require limbs.
AngryData 4 hours ago||
Okay we can make a completely digital environment for it to make coffee in then. It would still fail unless you let it randomly try every combination potentially thousands of times until it stumbles upon the right path. It doesn't take intelligence to read off a recipe, it does take intelligence to read a recipe, understand it, adapt it to your specific tools and materials on hand which may differ from the recipe, and then actually still accomplish it in the first or maybe second try.
sf12sd 8 hours ago||
Not peer reviewed, Lean proofs are 100,000 lines long and Lean has bugs:

https://cr.yp.to/proofs.html

Who is going to wade through this?

kypro 8 hours ago|
They've been hiring mathematicians to verify this stuff themselves. They're obviously not just throwing it out there without any human review.
12asg 8 hours ago||
And these mathematicians sink the comment to the bottom in 5 min?

It is not peer review if it is all in one company that wants an IPO.

bifftastic 2 days ago||
Any advances in theoretical physics yet? Are there any fundamental obstacles? I would have thought not, but I haven't seen anything reported.
ls612 2 days ago||
The fundamental obstacle is that we have no conceivable way to produce the energy levels to test the predictions that new theoretical physics would produce. We are like over a dozen orders of magnitude off.
tim333 1 day ago||
There's a lot of everyday stuff in physics which is unexplained like the particle masses we have.
Windchaser 7 hours ago||
And a lot of condensed matter physics. Type II superconductivity is a well-known one, but there are a lot of more less well-known ones
QuesnayJr 2 days ago||
The Maxwell conjecture was a conjecture in theoretical physics (though not a particularly important one)
scuppernong 2 days ago||
the people who crow in the comments of each of these posts about AI advances making human beings useless seem to bizarrely identify themselves with the AI, but none of them seem to have had any hand in building this technology. at best, they're power users. pure ressentiment.
s_Hogg 2 days ago||
I don't know why, but when I saw the source of this particular headline it reminded me of the album title 26 Mixes for Cash
defrost 2 days ago|
Ambient 0: Math for Airports
melagonster 2 days ago|
Wow, so this is the end of science :(
AngryData 4 hours ago||
It solved a handful of novel esoteric problems out of hundreds fed to it. Far from the end of science.
xyzsparetimexyz 2 days ago|||
It's just another tool that can help solve problems. It doesn't know _what_ problems to solve. It turns out that a lot of old problems are now low hanging fruit for these new models. In terms of 'expanding the frontier', we've just discovered dynamite and can now blast our way through mountains. The bottom of the ocean or space are still as hard to reach as ever.
silver_sun 1 day ago||
It's not even predictable like dynamite. Sometimes it can blast through a mountain, impressively, the problem is you can't predict which mountain it works on. And other times it can't even make a dent in a molehill, which is perplexing given what it was capable of earlier. Can we even call it dynamite?
woeirua 2 days ago||
No bud, it’s just the beginning!
More comments...