←back to thread

249 points rishicomplex | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
Robotenomics ◴[] No.42166395[source]
“Only 5/509 participants solved P6”
replies(1): >>42166999 #
nybsjytm ◴[] No.42166999[source]
This has to come with an asterisk, which is that participants had approximately 90 minutes to work on each problem while AlphaProof computed for three days for each of the ones it solved. Looking at this problem specifically, I think that many participants could have solved P6 without the time limit.

(I think you should be very skeptical of anyone who hypes AlphaProof without mentioning this - which is not to suggest that there's nothing there to hype)

replies(2): >>42167113 #>>42168802 #
auggierose ◴[] No.42167113[source]
Certainly an interesting information that AlphaProof needed three days. But does it matter for evaluating the importance of this result? No.
replies(2): >>42167292 #>>42168126 #
nybsjytm ◴[] No.42167292[source]
I agree that the result is important regardless. But the tradeoff of computing time/cost with problem complexity is hugely important to think about. Finding a proof in a formal language is trivially solvable in theory since you just have to search through possible proofs until you find one ending with the desired statement. The whole practical question is how much time it takes.

Three days per problem is, by many standards, a 'reasonable' amount of time. However there are still unanswered questions, notably that 'three days' is not really meaningful in and of itself. How parallelized was the computation; what was the hardware capacity? And how optimized is AlphaProof for IMO-type problems (problems which, among other things, all have short solutions using elementary tools)? These are standard kinds of critical questions to ask.

replies(2): >>42167378 #>>42170461 #
dash2 ◴[] No.42167378[source]
Though, if you start solving problems that humans can't or haven't solved, then questions of capacity won't matter much. A speedup in the movement of the maths frontier would be worth many power stations.
replies(1): >>42167482 #
nybsjytm ◴[] No.42167482[source]
For some time a 'superhuman math AI' could be useful for company advertising and getting the attention of VCs. But eventually it would be pretty clear that innovative math research, with vanishingly few exceptions, isn't very useful for making revenue. (I am a mathematician and this is meant with nothing but respect for math research.)
replies(2): >>42168017 #>>42171919 #
1. empath75 ◴[] No.42171919[source]
The big exception being predicting market movements, and I can't imagine how much money the hedge funds are spending on this right now.