It's because HN is not really full of smart people. It's full of people who think they're smart and take pride in that idea that they're pretty intelligent.

ChatGPT equalizes intelligence. And that is an attack on their identity. It also exposes their ACTUAL intelligence which is to say most of HN is not too smart.

▲

missingdays 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> ChatGPT equalizes intelligence

Citation needed

▲

simianwords 4 hours ago | parent [-]

how can you ask this question with on a post titled "Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem"???? are you looking for some randomised control trial? omg

▲

adQ28 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

We just look at comments from AI boosters and it is self-evident that no intelligence is being equalized.

▲

JumpCrisscross 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Idk, going out on a limb and guessing the folks who hang out on erdosproblems.com aren’t run-of-the-mill dumbasses. The prompt, if you look at it, is actually quite clever. Not as clever as the proof. But far from the equalization OP posits.

	▲	simianwords 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Directionally it is correct - an amateur wouldn’t be able to do this without ChatGPT. You can’t expect maximal democratisation

▲

bsza 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> ChatGPT equalizes intelligence

Yes, I love living in communism too. Imagine if you had to pay money for it or something. The wealthiest people would get unrestricted access to intelligence while the poor none. And the people in the middle would eventually find themselves unable to function without a product they can no longer afford. Chilling, huh? Good thing humans are known for sharing in the benefits of technological progress equally. /s

▲

Jtarii 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Huh?

Before ChatGPT it costs ~$100,000 to aquire intelligence good enough to solve this Erdos problem, now it costs ~$200.

I'm really confused at what you are even taking an issue with.

▲

simianwords 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

what? the post is literally titled "Amateur armed with ChatGPT solves an Erdős problem". stop spreading FUD about unaffordability

▲

bsza 4 hours ago | parent [-]

They used ChatGPT Pro to solve it. Over 50% of people in the world couldn't afford ChatGPT Pro ($200/mo) even if they spent more than half of their income on it. [1]

What was that about "spreading FUD about unaffordability"?

[1] https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-living-with-less-th...

▲

sunaookami 3 hours ago | parent [-]

They didn't buy ChatGPT Pro themselves. You could've done the same as the students in the article and get a free subscription if you were interested in this instead of trolling.

▲

bsza 3 hours ago | parent [-]

> You could've done the same

Please show me the steps to get a $200 subscription for free that works 100% of the time regardless of who you are. I'm listening.

▲

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent [-]

ChatGPT flattened the difference between top .0001 percentile mathematician and an amateur. This is the definition of making intelligence more available.

You are exaggerating the situation by essentially claiming since some people can’t afford 200 dollars this means ChatGPT is not democratising intelligence. It’s a bit strange to claim this because according to you it only becomes affordable when maximal number of people can afford it. It’s a bit childish.

Directionally it is democratising. Are more people able to afford higher level intelligence? Yes.

	▲	bsza an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> ChatGPT flattened the difference between top .0001 percentile mathematician and an amateur It flattened the difference between a top epsilon percentile mathematician and an amateur with money. It didn't flatten the difference between an amateur with a little money and an amateur with a lot of money. It widened it. That's the part I'm scared about. You are shrugging this off because it currently isn't that expensive. But we're talking about the massively subsidized price here, which is bound to get orders of magnitude higher when the bubble pops. Models are also likely to get much better. If it gets to a point where the only way to obtain exceptionally high intelligence is with an exceptionally high net worth and vice versa, how is that going to democratize anything?