←back to thread

296 points todsacerdoti | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.226s | source
Show context
cheesecompiler ◴[] No.44367317[source]
The reverse is possible too: throwing massive compute at a problem can mask the existence of a simpler, more general solution. General-purpose methods tend to win out over time—but how can we be sure they’re truly the most general if we commit so hard to one paradigm (e.g. LLMs) that we stop exploring the underlying structure?
replies(4): >>44367776 #>>44367991 #>>44368757 #>>44375546 #
logicchains ◴[] No.44367776[source]
We can be sure via analysis based on computational theory, e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.03961 and https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.07923 . This lets us know what classes of problems a model is able to solve, and sufficiently deep transformers with chain of thought have been shown to be theoretically capable of solving a very large class of problems.
replies(4): >>44367856 #>>44367945 #>>44369625 #>>44373799 #
1. dsr_ ◴[] No.44367856[source]
A random number generator is guaranteed to produce a correct solution to any problem, but runtime usually does not meet usability standards.

Also, solution testing is mandatory. Luckily, you can ask an RNG for that, too, as long as you have tests for the testers already written.