nopinsight

Joined 17 years ago

Karma
7,312
Submissions
1,638
Member since
Mar 14
Co-Founder of a stealth startup

Working on:

agentic systems, natural language understanding, machine learning

Comments here do not represent any companies or organizations I am associated with.

Email: My username at the best known email service beginning with g.

View on Hacker News

Recent submissions

Comment · 1 month ago
Comment · 3 months ago
I suspect an AI, possibly a successor to current LLMs, will achieve that by the early 2030s. It might help illuminate many mysteries in math and beyond for us all.
Comment · 4 months ago
As someone who's always loved synthesizing ideas and having lightbulb moments, I find the headline flattering. I wonder, though, if there's any more rigorous and general analysis (hah!) of the complexity of these two modes of thought.

EDIT: Fable 5 turned up some relevant references:

[1] Richardson, D. (1968). "Some Undecidable Problems Involving Elementary Functions of a Real Variable." Journal of Symbolic Logic, 33(4). — Differentiation is a simple recursive algorithm; deciding integrability in elementary terms is undecidable in general.

[2] Risch, R. H. (1969). "The Problem of Integration in Finite Terms." Transactions of the American Mathematical Society, 139. — The partial recovery: a (semi-)decision procedure for a restricted class.

[3] Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. McGraw-Hill. — The divergent vs. convergent thinking distinction, the classic psychometric cousin of synthesis vs. analysis.

[4] Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (Eds.) (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing (revision of Bloom's taxonomy). Longman. — Moved "Create" (synthesis) to the top of the cognitive hierarchy, above "Analyze."

[5] Aaronson, S. (2011). "Why Philosophers Should Care About Computational Complexity." arXiv:1108.1791. — Argues complexity asymmetries (verification vs. generation, P vs. NP) bear directly on questions about cognition.

Comment · 4 months ago
Someone also input lots of pre-GPT texts to Pangram and they were all clear. The point is Kramnik’s claims are much weaker and not comparable.
Comment · 4 months ago
To my knowledge, Pangram has a very low false positive rate approaching zero. (False negative is another matter.) I’m not sure that’s what you want to use as the analogy here? (I don’t know much about this Kramnik situation.)
Comment · 4 months ago
Quite frustrating to see all these cynical, borderline-irrational comments on HN. Maybe I should do what pg and other ex-HN contributors have done--avoid taking part in the discussions here.

The level of discourse here has dropped so much.

At least I should stop replying to people hiding under throwaway accounts.

Comment · 4 months ago
Demis' bar is high and he stated clearly multiple times: AGI should be capable of inventing truly novel things. Examples he gave included the Theory of General Relativity and the game of Go.

Just a taste of what's to come: https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-c...

Anthropic's latest model also solved this 80-year-old problem that eluded many expert mathematicians, in a different way, according to one of its employees.

Remember we still have 4 years until 2030.

Comment · 4 months ago
No one rational ever said software engineers were going to be replaced in 6 months. Some people said AI will automate 90% of coding in 6 months and they were not far off (and accurate in some contexts, e.g. startups).
Comment · 4 months ago
Ten years ago, most of the skeptics in these threads would have said the success of AlphaFold 3 was impossible.
Comment · 4 months ago
Comment · 4 months ago

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton