|
| ▲ | stefap2 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Maybe I should have been clearer. My point is that solving something like Navier–Stokes just pushes knowledge work further ahead, onto a new set of bigger and more complex problems. Navier–Stokes is a Millennium problem today, but once problems like that become solvable, they can open the door to entirely new classes of problems we haven’t even thought of yet. |
| |
| ▲ | FridgeSeal 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Building on them without fundamentally understanding is akin to putting on robes, calling yourself a Tech-Priest, worshipping a machine god and doing your best Warhammer 40k impression. |
|
|
| ▲ | fooker 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, this is how science and engineering has worked for millennia. For example there are no engineering implications of this solution yet. For the next several decades, we'll have engineers (presumably with AI) optimize things like rocket engines and turbines and AC compressors to work a few percent better because the numerical approximations might have caused us to be overly conservative. AI is not going to magically solve all random problems. Pick a career where you are in the driver seat. |
| |
| ▲ | semi-extrinsic 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | > For the next several decades, we'll have engineers (presumably with AI) optimize things like rocket engines and turbines and AC compressors to work a few percent better because the numerical approximations might have caused us to be overly conservative. No. Just no. |
|
|
| ▲ | mlsu 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It seems like there were a couple of human mathematicians that were higher on the 'solving complex problems ladder' than this machine. |
| |
| ▲ | reducesuffering 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes a couple of elite mathematicians working on the problem for a year, which AGI solved in a fraction of the time. What about everyone else 100IQ? What about as the models are even better 1 year from now, 2 years? The trajectory hasn't abated. | | |
| ▲ | j_maffe 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > in a fraction of the time Well if you do the math, the number of agent-compute time in total, given the insane number of agents thrown at the problem, might end up being comparable in time, if not for the budget. | |
| ▲ | mlsu 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't know one way or another but there is a credible allegation that the "AGI" was training on the (very extensive) test set that these two mathematicians produced. If that is true then this seems to be, again, a case of AI producing an interpolation over data it has seen before. Everything about openAI's behavior indicates that they were using the transcripts as input. Why not have the AGI choose a different Millenium prize problem? | | |
| ▲ | FabCH 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Almost all of human development is interpolation over data we have seen before. It’s not exactly a strong argument against AI. | | |
| ▲ | FridgeSeal 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If ~~someone gives you a hint about an approach~~ you steal someone’s notes about a promising approach, and then you hire 10,000 people to brute force the problem basically everyone would consider that “shitty behaviour”, “theft”, and “poor form”. |
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
| |
| ▲ | 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | cyberax 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| It did not solve Navier-Stokes. We still will need to use the bad old numeric methods to simulate the fluid behavior. But it did find a long-suspected smooth solution with a singularity. |
