| ▲ | rybosworld 4 hours ago | |
In chess, a grandmaster just needs to know at what moment in a game there's a critical move to gain a significant advantage over their opponent. They don't need to know the move itself. OpenAI got wind that a millenium problem was being solved. And that feels a bit like the critical move in chess. That is - it was a signal that AI advanced far enough that it would be worth spending a lot of time and resources solving a millenium problem. | ||
| ▲ | Kotlopou 3 hours ago | parent [-] | |
Elsewhere in this thread somebody claimed that at some point OpenAI pointed their new model at all the millennium problems and this is where they got some progress. We probably won't see proof of this, but it seems plausible to me -- I assume there's a list of problems that each new model is tested on, and you might as well put the big stuff on the list, if only to see how the model behaves when faced with a problem it knows should be very hard. The weak point in this is: how do you evaluate if a partial result is promising? If this cost ~$10M as suggested elsewhere in the thread, probably not even OpenAI can just throw that at everything? | ||