alok-g

Can someone explain how does this work behind the scenes?

Also, how much would be typical AI token costs of doing this for various apps, simple to complex using some reference AI model?

Thanks.

The backlog in India is not just because there's more work and less judges.

I would rather wait for AI models to get up to the mark (which may be a few years) and handle the bulk of the cases, than have Indian courts waste everyone's time and energy.

I agree that AI needs alignment and validation, and this is already been worked on [*1]. I'll assume below that this is a given.

For the rest, AI itself may be able to handle better than most humans. It already has good idea about what being human is [*2], understands that this isn't a one-dimensional problem, can do balancing like humans would, find more direct/efficient paths than humans. For many things I discuss with AI, I find that it already reasons much better than most humans (not even considering that AI knows so much more than any human).

I think we over-index on "the same prompt will provide different plans". Humans would do the same too. Humans, working in isolation or with collaboration can self-correct, but the same applies to AI.

>> On what ground would you give the machine a pass?

The benchmark I hold is humans themselves. Humans currently have the pass, and have had it since history. Yet, there are many irrational decisions everywhere around.

I hear complaints that AI hallucinates. Yes, it does. Humans do too, and more often than they are willing to admit. The concept of 'god' may entirely be a hallucination (i.e., something not supported by facts). There is no good scientific evidence of prayers working, yet many humans believe in the same.

The real issue is that AI seems to learn and hallucinate in a different way than humans -- it sometimes makes some very silly mistakes. No disagreement, we need to make it better. The pace at which AI can become better however could easily surpass the speed at which humans learn or change. I am not suggesting we give AI the pass till it becomes good enough, there's enough progress on alignment, etc.

>> Do you really think our ancestors chose to cut off their legs in abandonment when they figured that some animals could outpace them?

Great! Here lies an important point. Between humans and animals, we have nature's evolutionary processes, survival of the fittest, ... Depending on how one sees it (and this is a real debate in my mind), we could use AI to enhance our survival and progress faster, or we could see AI as an enemy (like it is another species) and compete.

For some people, the goal is exactly advancements of humans. I, so far, see it as evolutionary progress, whatever form it takes.

[*1] Whether we are doing enough for that or not, is a valid debate.

[*2] AI cannot experience it, it cannot 'know' it in the human sense of knowing if that means something different, but it could emulate well enough.

>> If AI is not working for humans' benefits

>> not working towards an optimization problem set-up by humans

I am suggesting neither of the two.

Not a great analogy but a parent may be working for an infant's benefit without the infant yet being able to understand. Taking an arbitrarily broad example, the problem to optimize for could be "help humanity advance", and other aspects could be subgoals of the same including what mathematics is useful.

I see two assumptions in the core argument, both of which are open to challenge.

1. AI can do proofs, but deciding which problems to solve, which math is useful, is by humans.

2. The math that's picked needs to be understandable by humans.

For #1, AI may be able to play a significant, if not a takeover, role for even figuring out what math is useful.

For #2, understandability by humans may be good for now, but could also turn out to be a significant constraint. Correctness is a goal, trust is an important requirement, human understandability may be an intermediary for that, but not necessarily the end goal.

In other words, the article may stand the current state of the art, but may not stand merely a couple years down the road.

Useful mathematics need not mean understandable by humans. Why cannot AI, in the future, also figure what mathematics is useful. Whatever role we see for humans in mathematics, could possibly be picked up (and done better) by AI (in the future). Choosing proofs, strategies, abstractions, figuring utility, intuitiveness, all are in principle a search problem, including meta-search where needed.

I wonder if the advantage AI has is simply that it has absorbed vastly more collective mathematical experience and can therefore provide better search heuristics than a human.

May I know how much token costs came out to be for this? Also, how did it handle Wordpress plugins? If you have comments on the website, how did you handle those and spam detection? Thanks.

Looks nice.

My website is hosted on 1and1 via PHP. I am guessing that this would not work for me as installation needs server access. Moving to VPS, along with transferring domain, would require more time than I would like to spend. Thanks.