Achievements of Artificial Intelligence (AI)

hotblack said:
Interest costs are not falling and quite recently are rising again so you get to a point that this doesn’t add up at the scale they are trying. Capital markets won’t buy it.
Click to expand...
The long term rates have increased by a lot very quickly. The 10 year US rate is at 4.95 %, which is almost at the peak before the finance crisis in 2008. The same is going on in other countries. In short, debt is getting very expensive and it’s probably going to stay that way for a long time.

The markets are essentially gambling right now, because none of the valuations of the largest companies make no sense if you look at the ordinary models you’d typically use.
hotblack said:
There seems to be a lot of wishful thinking that a crash means the technology goes away. Not a chance. I don’t know what will happen but it’s not that.
Click to expand...
The so-called AI winters of the past coincided with AI failing to deliver on the hype, but also with the technology failing to find broad use cases. I think the latter was most important. This time it will be different, because there are already so many use cases. But it’s impossible to predict the cost per capability, which will be the main limitation for what it’s used for as it is for any technology.
 
ChronicallyOverIt said:
Rumour that openAI or Anthropic solved another millennium prize, hodge conjecture. Probably will be confirmed later this week or early next. People now think we’re on pace to solve them all by end of 2026 if they keep going. I mean it only took 88 hours for NS, seems reasonable.
Click to expand...
88 hours for a huge swarm of thousands of agents. I don't think OpenAI revealed the exact numbers, maybe just an order of magnitude, and they amount to something like 400-500 years of research (accounting for about 2K work hours per year).

But it really is only the real time metric that matters. This is really what technology and intelligence are all about: compressing time, getting solutions faster. This is what will be the real difference maker for us, and for everyone in the end: the ability to do centuries of work in a few days. Nothing can match that.

There is no force in the universe that can make time run faster locally and give out answers in a frame of reference that runs slower. Only AI and quantum computation can achieve that.
 
jnmaciuch said:
The reason this doesnt exist at scale for more complicated experiments is because beyond a handful of specific protocols, things get much less repetitive and assembly-line-able.
Click to expand...
The same argument could probably have been made for machining: there's turning, and drilling, milling, etc. Conservative thinking. Now the machining centers do all sorts of machining tasks. So, my guess is that there will be some creative breakthroughs in biochemical microprocessing, along with gradual improvements, expanding the capability of biolab centers. Someone will look at some process that is now considered single-purpose and realize that with a minor addition, it could also do a few other tricks, and pretty soon they're printing mice from chemical feedstocks.
 
I find this a very bizarre declaration. There is nothing stopping anyone from working other angles on a solved problem and finding novel concepts in the process. Absolutely nothing. Even if the Riemann conjecture was solve tomorrow, there would still be very interesting side problems and it would be worth looking at them.

Imagine putting the same idea onto cancer. Would these signatories reject the value of AI finding a universal cure for most cancers just because it didn't allow for whimsical chances of stumbling onto interesting side quests? Who cares?!

This is all ego. And also very silly, as if we will run out of problems any time soon. I look at what early programmers had to do to make software work, and how modern programming just before AI was, and they are almost nothing alike. And we do far more with it, not less.

This is a similar sentiment as "what will people do if they don't have to work anymore?" And then you can simply look at rich people and how they are definitely doing very well despite having "nothing to do".
 
Chandelier said:
From Bluesky:



​
A group of 25 Fields Medalists, including myself, have made a joint declaration on Math and AI:​

Declaration — Math and AI

Read the declaration and add your name.
mathandai.org mathandai.org
We welcome additional signatories.​
See also this article in the Economist announcing the declaration:​

Click to expand...
I haven't found Terry Tao's arguments that I've seen too convincing, I must say. The existential crisis he has now probably has been a problem for most people for years and even more so since he's been using AI to produce even more papers for some time now.

I think others like Peter Scholze, who also signed the declaration at the "AI Impact Summit", have had more convincing arguments. It'll be interesting to hear what Martin Hairer's thoughts are on the recent progress, he's been part of the First Proofs team and in the past has been somewhat sceptical of the capabilities of such systems, but I suspect that is very different now.

rvallee said:
Even if the Riemann conjecture was solve tomorrow, there would still be very interesting side problems and it would be worth looking at them.
Click to expand...
You cannot work on any problems when all of them are solved by an AI, side problem or not. So you need an entirely different structure if you want mathematical problem solving to be retained in the population.
rvallee said:
This is all ego. And also very silly, as if we will run out of problems any time soon.
Click to expand...
It's not a matter of problems. There will be problems, but none are left that humans can work on in the current environment. This represents a dramatic shift, because solving problems is what mathematicians have largely been doing for thousand of years.

rvallee said:
Would these signatories reject the value of AI finding a universal cure for most cancers just because it didn't allow for whimsical chances of stumbling onto interesting side quests? Who cares?!
Click to expand...
That doesn't seem like a fitting comparison. Solving cancer has genuine real world implications, solving NS and similar problems has no real world value. The real world value only comes from developing ideas that become sophisticated over time and at some point are applied to some real world problem (but largely not). I'm of the opinion that this is something that will also done by AI in the future, but since it isn't the case yet and hasn't been historcially, arguments for the other view point exist.
 
rvallee said:
I find this a very bizarre declaration. There is nothing stopping anyone from working other angles on a solved problem and finding novel concepts in the process. Absolutely nothing. Even if the Riemann conjecture was solve tomorrow, there would still be very interesting side problems and it would be worth looking at them.
Click to expand...
I thought it was really good. Their point is not that AI is taking away problems. It's that a lot of the usefulness of doing mathematics comes ultimately through humans understanding the new math, and especially from the new tools that are invented to make progress on hard problems. The problems themselves are in some ways more sign posts of progress than ends in and of themselves, in this view.

When a new technique is developed to handle a hard problem, if we're lucky it has many other applications and gets disseminated widely -- a bit analogous to GPS being developed by for military use, but now improving everyone's life by being in smartphones.

I don't think this statement is calling for a halt on AI use in math (Terry Tao after all lead the way on AI use in math..). I think it's just trying to get out ahead of a potential problem they see, where we seemingly make a lot of *visible* mathematical progress for a while with the help of AI (i.e. big showy results being reported constantly) but at the same time are not actually making so much progress on the less visible, quieter work of disseminating the useful parts of those results among the community. There's no reason it has to be that way, it's just a risk that we might slide into that situation without thinking because up until now it's never been a problem (big new results used to be so rare tons of attention was always focused on them).
 
What would happen if you gave Newton some of Einstein’s predictions that turned out the be right, and told him we know these are right but we don’t know why? Would physics advance faster than it did? I think it would.

Or what about Ramanujan. He was a self-taught mathematician who proposed a vast amount if ideas of solutions that he
arrived at by a process of mingled argument, intuition, and induction, of which he was entirely unable to give any coherent account.
Click to expand...
He met a lot of resistance at the time for many reasons, including racism, but he moved many fields forward and nobody today will deny the importance lf his contributions.

AI is going to be the nuclear version of these scenarios. But we’ll probably have an easier time solving the problems that creates for us, than solving the maths problems AI solves.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom