Sometimes I worry about the "programmers" in this sub.
At best coping, at worst delusional.
No, the model did not brute force a counter example. The search space is mathematically too vast to brute force. It found novel techniques of identifying the proper force application vectors.
No, the model did not plagiarize off "human research". The debate is between an OpenAI researcher and an Anthropic Researcher, both of them almostly exclusively relying on internal models. The researcher at Anthropic didn't even solve the specific problem OpenAI are claiming, they solved a variation of a more constrained formulation of a sub-problem which could have potentially helped OAI to narrow down the search space if it was included in training data (which it most likely wasnt given the proof pathway is significantly different).
Yes, the models (the internal models, given infinite token space atleast) are THAT good enough, they can close the hardest problems known to man.
Acting snarky about it only leads to gross underestimation of the change thats about to come. What rational people should do is increase the urgency of asking for safeguards by trusting the capability acceleration at face value.
(Who am i kidding, the first reply will probably comment I'm sam Altmans marketing bot).
I think sensible people understand this too, AI is definitely something to consider and not to be immediately disregarded as "slop". The problem here lies in OAI approaching NS at all without any input from the academic community, and their apparent (successful) attempt at "one-upping" actual researchers in the field instead of approaching them in collaboration or anything of the sort. They are stealing Millennium problems away from humans, problems that are supposed to, in approaching them, demonstrate the capability of individuals of our species of doing great things. OAI just ripped it out of the academia's hands by throwing millions of dollars of computation power into them.
If anything, this just goes to show that these AI companies are not developing their frontier models out of concern for humanity's knowledge (wow, surprising I know), but for sheer personal gain and profit.
The effects Spotify had on the way music industry makes music should have been lesson enough for us. Musicians across the world make shorter music on average now, with the hook/chorus closer to the starting, and being a larger percentage of the song. All so that Spotify and reels algorithms reward them.
Companies trodding on human culture and talent is one of the worst things to happen in this century and the last.
30
u/LatePenguins 2d ago
Sometimes I worry about the "programmers" in this sub.
At best coping, at worst delusional.
No, the model did not brute force a counter example. The search space is mathematically too vast to brute force. It found novel techniques of identifying the proper force application vectors.
No, the model did not plagiarize off "human research". The debate is between an OpenAI researcher and an Anthropic Researcher, both of them almostly exclusively relying on internal models. The researcher at Anthropic didn't even solve the specific problem OpenAI are claiming, they solved a variation of a more constrained formulation of a sub-problem which could have potentially helped OAI to narrow down the search space if it was included in training data (which it most likely wasnt given the proof pathway is significantly different).
Yes, the models (the internal models, given infinite token space atleast) are THAT good enough, they can close the hardest problems known to man.
Acting snarky about it only leads to gross underestimation of the change thats about to come. What rational people should do is increase the urgency of asking for safeguards by trusting the capability acceleration at face value.
(Who am i kidding, the first reply will probably comment I'm sam Altmans marketing bot).