| ▲ | amelius 5 hours ago |
| > The answer was simple in hindsight. It just kept looking until it found it—and that persistence might show up in many other areas. Sounds more like brute forcing than intelligence, this time. |
|
| ▲ | SamBam 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I don't think it counts as brute forcing unless you're resorting to trying every possible solution. And clearly the LLM didn't do that here, because there would be near-infinite possible solutions. I don't think we can really call "trying lots of different ideas for an extended period" "brute-forcing," unless we use that term for lots of humans who have struggled with hard math problems for years. |
|
| ▲ | al_borland 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| That seems a like the result for a lot of AI solves. It solves it due to persistence, on a problem that hasn’t been important enough for a human to invest significant time into. |
| |
| ▲ | scorpioxy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's what Terence Tao said in one of his recent videos about it. That what the LLMs can provide is scale that humans can't. The example he provided is checking many possible solutions in a short amount of time because they can review all the previous literature and, for example, rule out ones with errors. He was realistic and practical about it and said that the tools working this way can be very helpful for a human mathematician to use even if they're not "thinking". I find that to be a good balanced view that, unfortunately, seems to be rare these days. Even on this forum. | | |
| ▲ | amelius 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | But breadth first search combined with a good pruning/exploration heuristic has always been one of the field's (AI) main tools, so this certainly is not new. | | |
| ▲ | scorpioxy 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Yes, I don't think it's new either. In fact, this illusion that machines are suddenly "thinking" or are "intelligent" is just coming from ignorance and/or falling for the current hype cycle. I've been around for a few of these and I remember what was being said and written at the time. The after effect is very different to what was being predicted. Is it the same this time? Who knows. But the hype machine is at full power for this one. | |
| ▲ | genrader 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Correct but it's never been so accessible, so easy so smart and easy for the population of the world to use |
| |
| ▲ | lightandlight 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Do you have a link to that video? | | |
| ▲ | scorpioxy 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sorry, I don't remember. But I think it was in this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukpCHo5v-Gc Though I believe the core of his opinion hasn't changed so any video would tell you a similar thing or at least that's how I understood it. That LLMs, in the hands of an "expert", can enhance the way you work. Which is very different and a lot more realistic to what the current AI companies are saying(or were saying before they toned it down a bit for their IPOs). |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | prvc 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| >Sounds more like brute forcing than intelligence Do you have a criterion that distinguishes between whatever you mean by those two respective terms? |
| |
|
| ▲ | famouswaffles 33 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Please stop abusing the term 'brute-force'. This is not brute force. Rarely is there a non trivial problem you can sove in one master stroke. |
|
| ▲ | trentor 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| There is a reason even intelligent people go back to brute force for certain problems. |
|
| ▲ | slashdave 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| When a human solves a difficult problem by trying many approaches, we call it "persistence". |
|
| ▲ | andai 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Superintelligence ≈ Stupidity × Persistence |
