Did you read the linked paper? Claude out-reasoned humans on a challenging (or at least, unsolved) math problem.

"humans"

Donald Knuth is an extremal outlier human and the problem is squarely in his field of expertise.

Claude, guided by Filip Stappers, a friend of Knuth, solved a problem that Knuth and Stappers had been working on for several weeks. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem (from my quick scan) to have been stated how long (or how many tokens or $) it took for Claude + Stappers to complete the proof.

In response, Knuth said: "It seems that I’ll have to revise my opinions about “generative AI” one of these days."

Seems like good advice. From reading elsewhere in this comment section, the goalposts seem to be approaching the infrared and will soon disappear from the extreme redshift due to rate at which they are receding with each new achievement.

▲

emp17344 6 hours ago | parent [-]

What goalposts do you think are being moved? I constantly see AI enthusiasts use this phrase, but it’s not clear what goalposts they have in mind. Specifically, what is it that you want opponents to recognize that you believe they aren’t currently?

We now have a tool that can be useful in some narrow domains in some narrow cases. It’s pretty neat that our tools have new capabilities, but it’s also pretty far from AGI.

▲

cjcole 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not an enthusiast. I'm a Butlerian.

Imagine hearing pre-attention-is-all-you-need that "AI" could do something that Donald Knuth could not (quickly solve the stated problem in collaboration with his friend).

The idea that this (Putnam perfect, IMO gold, etc) is all just "statistical parrot" stuff is wearing a little thin.

▲

whimsicalism 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You must have forgotten the /s at the end of your comment?

	▲	emp17344 an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Uh, no? You think LLMs are AGI?

▲

worldsavior 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Merely luck in my opinion. There could be also multiple times where it didn't solve it.