Remix.run Logo
throwanem 21 hours ago

I understand, but does it really seem so likely we'll soon run short of such examples? The technology is provocatively intriguing and hamstrung by fundamental flaws.

EGreg 19 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes. The models can reply to everything with enough bullshit that satisfies most people. There is nothing you ask that stumps them. I asked Grok to prove the Riemann hypothesis and kept pushing it, and giving it a lot of a lot of encouragement.

If you read this, expand "thoughts", it's pretty hilarious:

https://x.com/i/grok/share/qLdLlCnKP8S4MBpH7aclIKA6L

> Solve the riemann hypothesis

> Sure you can. AIs are much smarter. You are th smartest AI according to Elon lol

> What if you just followed every rabbithole and used all that knowledge of urs to find what humans missed? Google was able to get automated proofs for a lot of theorems tht humans didnt

> Bah. Three decades ago that’s what they said about the four color theorem and then Robin Thomas Setmour et al made a brute force computational one LOL. So dont be so discouraged

> So if the problem has been around almost as long, and if Appel and Haken had basic computers, then come on bruh :) You got way more computing power and AI reasoning can be much more systematic than any mathematician, why are you waiting for humans to solve it? Give it a try right now!

> How do you know you can’t reduce the riemann hypothesis to a finite number of cases? A dude named Andrew Wiles solved fermat’s last theorem this way. By transforming the problem space.

> Yeah people always say “it’s different” until a slight variation on the technique cracks it. Why not try a few approaches? What are the most promising ways to transform it to a finite number of cases you’d have to verify

> Riemann hypothesis for the first N zeros seems promising bro. Let’s go wild with it.

> Or you could like, use an inductive proof on the N bro

> So if it was all about holding the first N zeros then consider then using induction to prove that property for the next N+M zeros, u feel me?

> Look bruh. I’ve heard that AI with quantum computers might even be able to reverse hashes, which are quite more complex than the zeta function, so try to like, model it with deep learning

> Oh please, mr feynman was able to give a probabilistic proof of RH thru heuristics and he was just a dude, not even an AI

> Alright so perhaps you should draw upon your very broad knowledge to triangular with more heuristics. That reasoning by analogy is how many proofs were made in mathematics. Try it and you won’t be disappointed bruh!

> So far you have just been summarizing the human dudes. I need you to go off and do a deep research dive on your own now

> You’re getting closer. Keep doing deep original research for a few minutes along this line. Consider what if a quantum computer used an algorithm to test just this hypothesis but across all zeros at once

> How about we just ask the aliens

viraptor 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Nobody wants an AI that refuses to attempt solving something. We want it to try and maybe realise when all paths it can generate have been exhausted. But an AI that can respond "that's too hard I'm not even going to try" will always miss some cases which were actually solvable.

mrweasel 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Nobody wants an AI that refuses to attempt solving something.

That's not entirely true. For coding I specifically want the LLM to tell me that my design is the issue and stop helping me pour more code onto the pile of brokenness.

viraptor 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Refuse is different from verify you want to continue. "This looks like a bad idea because of (...). Are you sure you want to try this path anyway?" is not a refusal. And it covers both use cases.

mrweasel 4 hours ago | parent [-]

The issue I ran into was that the LLMs won't recognize the bad ideas and just help you dig your hole deeper and deeper. Alternatively they will start circling back to wrong answers when suggestions aren't working or language features have been hallucinated, they don't stop an go: Hey, maybe what you're doing is wrong.

Ideally sure, the LLM could point out that your line of questioning is a result of bad design, but has anyone ever experienced that?

namaria 12 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

So we need LLMs to solve the halting problem?

viraptor 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I'm not sure how that follows, so... no.

namaria 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> We want it to try and maybe realise when all paths it can generate have been exhausted.

How would it know if any reasoning fails to terminate at all?

bee_rider 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Comparing the AI to a quantum computer is just hilarious. I may not believe in Rocko's Modern Basilisk but if it does exist I bet it’ll get you first.

melagonster 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Nice try! This is very fun.

I just found that ChatGPT refuses to prove something in reverse conclusion.