| ▲ | whimsicalism 3 hours ago |
| but the researchers were also largely relying on AI |
|
| ▲ | cmiles8 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| “relying on” is misleading here relative to what the researchers have said. If I write a book and pass it through a spelling and polish checker, I still wrote the book and its core IP. I didn’t “rely on” the tool to create the IP. |
| |
| ▲ | whimsicalism 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | it’s much more like you come up with the premise and someone else writes the book. the released prompts for other foundational problems (like unit distance) prove that. | |
| ▲ | vouaobrasil 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The tools the researchers used though was much more than an spellchecker, because spellcheckers don't come up with chains of reasoning for the arguments in the book. The LLMs did in the case of the Navier-Stokes problem. | |
| ▲ | vonneumannstan an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If this were the case the problem would not have remained unsolved for this long. A new spell checker is not what cracked the problem. |
|
|
| ▲ | hunterpayne an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The researchers were driving prompts and trying to actually do math. The OpenAI effort was a pure brute force attempt. I'm not even sure an LLM was actually involved. I think they just used their hardware to run the matrix multiplies required by the search for a counter example. Perhaps some clever approach guided the search but that seems to be about it. |
|
| ▲ | pphysch 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In the same way you rely on a keyboard or touchscreen to type this comment. It doesn't mean the tool is the brain behind the work. |
| |
| ▲ | Romario77 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | that's not how AI was used in this case. It's more like a professor with assistants. Professor says the assistants - why don't you dig in this direction, I have a hunch it might produce something valuable. And AI assistant does just that, proving or disproving a hunch. This would take the professor a lot of time if doing by themselves. | |
| ▲ | vouaobrasil 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Keyboards don't suggest chains of reasoning or words to type. When I press the K key, I know exactly what will happen. It's just a translation layer that gives an output known ahead of time and thus does not impinge upon the creativity of putting words together. A better example would be playing chess against a player slightly stronger than me and using a chess computer to suggest some good moves. I could win, but it certianly wouldn't be just my brain that wins. It would be an amalgamation of my brain with a machine that suggests good moves. One cannot simply reason by analogy. | | |
| ▲ | visarga an hour ago | parent [-] | | > Keyboards don't suggest chains of reasoning or words to type My iPhone keyboard does |
| |
| ▲ | whimsicalism 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | frankly don’t know how to reply to these sorts of comments anymore | | |
|
