If you view them as "theories of computational limits" instead of "proposed practical speedups" they can be a lot more interesting.

It's most interesting when the lower bound can actually be proven. In lack of that, we have to guess what the best possible algorithm might yield (generalized or not). This tells us that need not be O(n log n) and we have the opportunity to still find better algorithms than we typically thought would be possible. This does the latter, which is interesting, but it just leaves us to hunger more for what the real limit must be :).

▲

12390asdjkas 2 hours ago | parent [-]

i understand this, but it always feels like we are being tricked when they say "integer multiplication below nlogn" because we intuit that that must mean "faster integer multiplication below nlogn EVERYWHERE!". but in reality it comes with 15 asterisks about the conditions that must be true for their statement to hold true.

Your issue is that I am viewing this proof as what it really is in terms of progressing the field and not from an imaginative perspective. I think that it is important to ground our selves somewhat in reality when discussing research like this because at the end of the day open ai is not doing for fun either.

openai wants to show the world what their product can do and i am simply not impressed

	▲	pickleRick243 an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I can respect your opinion if it's consistent- i.e. it's not just directed at OpenAI's results. But this seems to be an example of a common phenomenon with AI discourse: while disparaging LLM achievements, you indirectly insult the careers/accomplishments of 99% of mathematicians for whom this would easily be the crown jewel of their CV.
	▲	zamadatix 2 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		This progresses the field a great deal, just perhaps not the field you're interested in? There's nothing wrong with a "and what can I apply that to in my life tomorrow" approach but it's certainly not the only approach worth having in the world.
	▲	inkysigma an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Well, that’s true for a lot of TCS algorithms. The n log n algorithm prior was also not very practical for any numbers relevant to humans.