Maro
Joined 18 years ago
Joined 18 years ago
Maybe post-LLMs mathematicians will work on problems/topics that even ChatGPT can't solve? Like, P=NP remains unsolved, we can work on that. Sure, it's possible that it will get solved tomorrow by an AI or somebody else, but that possibility was always there.. Or, to be more practical, one of the claimed OpenAI results is that integer multiplication is sub n×log(n), so assuming it stands, now there's a new question: "What is the actual lower bound for integer multiplication?"
I have no proof, but I believe (i) LLM progress will converge at some point, (ii) that point will not be so far off from human intelligence, since they're trained on human intelligence, so.. not all problems will be solved/solvable by LLMs. But they'll be fast(er), like calculators are faster than us.
> But closer examination reveals that OpenAI’s proof builds its unnatural force in a totally distinct way. The proof’s similarities to Buckmaster and Alpöge’s progress are superficial...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openais-blockbust...
So I think more time needs to pass before a call can be made.
An interesting thought experiment is this: if we were to go back in time 150 years and tell our ancestors that Newton is just an approximation and give them a 5,000 page book about Special and General Relativity, QM and QFT, would we be robbing them? Initially the whole thing would be incomprehensible, but eventually they would chew through it and make sense of it. I don't really know the answer (and perhaps the analogy is not great since we're quite attached to our physics heroes from the last 150 years).
That has not been my experience.
Lastly, deep down I don't really get what mathematicians are so upset about. All open problems, once solved, are not solved by 99.9999% of mathematicians, because it's solved by one or a handful of others, and the others just learn of the solution/proof. Mathematicians can now still organize conferences about these proofs, discuss them, digest them, think of new avenues of research, etc. They don't even have to invite OpenAI, in 6 months whatever model is available on chatgpt.com will be this smart anyway, and they can use it in the workshops for explanations, etc.
[1] I was going to write "I'm a bit disappointed by the response of the math community..", but then I remembered, whatever T. Tao writes is not the position of the math community, it's his position. Then I was going to write "I'm a bit disappointed by the response of T. Tao..", but then I remembered, I don't know Tao personally, so why am I disappointed?
[2] Steve Ballmer of Microsoft, I believe
I would not call him a crank, he's just an "independent physicist". He is a very successful and wealthy businessman thanks to Mathematica, with $100Ms of wealth presumably, and he choses to do physics in his own way, pursuing subjects that he finds interesting, in ways he finds interesting. And he writes about his work and himself in grandiose ways, usually comparing himself to Newton and Einstein.
Nothing major has come out of his research, other then one of his co-workers proving that one of the simple CAs is Turing complete.
Most academic physicists ignore him, but that's fine. Personally, I think we need more people like Wolfram who are doing totally independent research, with their own funds. Statistically, something unexpectedly good could come out of it!
His latest research subject is Ruliology:
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2026/01/what-is-ruliolog...
Today I'm 45 with family and have a fancy VP title, but I would have no problem to do this for an interesting role at a cool company.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann
> Claude Shannon called him "the smartest person I've ever met", a common opinion.
> Von Neumann founded the field of game theory as a mathematical discipline.
> .. leading him to a large number of military consultancies and consequently his involvement in the Manhattan Project.
> In 1950, von Neumann became a consultant to the Weapons Systems Evaluation Group..
> In 1955, von Neumann became a commissioner of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), which at the time was the highest official position available to scientists in the government.
> In his final years before his death from cancer, von Neumann headed the United States government's top-secret ICBM committee..
Models have become a commodity, hardware not so much; why would Nvidia care? It's the models who are competing primarily, not hardware manufacturers.
Also, models are software, so easy to switch out. AI hardware otoh has a approx. 3-5 year useful life, I don't see how this affects hardware already running, or getting built.
- on non-supported browsers (eg. mobile) don't render the app, show a message instead
- Shift + Home/End for selecting text doesn't work
- Ctrl + N for a new page doesn't work
- things like the above ^, while it may be trivial, will turn off people who will not spend more than 10-20s to evaluate
- you're refer the simplicity of text files, but the editor is not fixed width, it's more like a Markdown-ish editor, closer to Google Docs with its default styles
- when typing - it creates a list, but the list's left margin (where the - starts) is not aligned on the overall left margin of the page, it's very annoying to me
- to me, this is too far away from the simplicity of a text file — this comment, I'm writing it up in Sublime in plain text, and then I'll copy it to Chrome/HN, but I wouldn't do it in your tool — I love being able to Alt-Tab to Sublime, hit Ctrl+N to get a new "file" which is a temporary/ephemeral workspace for typing text, typing and getting sasisfying fixed-width readable text, and then copy/pasting it to my destination, which almost always has a less pleasant editor
- eg. I also write my non-trivial ChatGPT conversations like that ^
- one of the few exceptions is Google Docs, I can directly work into that
- the reason I ended on Google Docs: after a few minutes of playing around, it's not clear to me how using your product would be significantly better for me than using Google Docs for notes (which I don't) — I can use GDocs to write roughly Markdown-equivalent structure, and there's plugins to import/export Markdown — and GDocs is backed by Google, has a working editor, apps, multi-user support, commenting, Google ecosystem integration, etc.
This seems to imply that a significant fraction of Adobe revenues is from private individuals who pay monthly fees just to occasionally do image edits with Photoshop and similar tools.
I don't think that's true.