←back to thread

358 points throw0101c | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.208s | source
Show context
oytis ◴[] No.44609364[source]
I just hope when (if) the hype is over, we can repurpose the capacities for something useful (e.g. drug discovery etc.)
replies(17): >>44609452 #>>44609461 #>>44609463 #>>44609471 #>>44609489 #>>44609580 #>>44609632 #>>44609635 #>>44609712 #>>44609785 #>>44609958 #>>44609979 #>>44610227 #>>44610522 #>>44610554 #>>44610755 #>>44620671 #
charleshn ◴[] No.44610227[source]
I'm always surprised by the number of people posting here that are dismissive of AI and the obvious unstoppable progress.

Just looking at what happened with chess, go, strategy games, protein folding etc, it's obvious that pretty much any field/problem that can be formalised and cheaply verified - e.g. mathematics, algorithms etc - will be solved, and that it's only a matter of time before we have domain-specific ASI.

I strongly encourage everyone to read about the bitter lesson [0] and verifier's law [1].

[0] http://www.incompleteideas.net/IncIdeas/BitterLesson.html

[1] https://www.jasonwei.net/blog/asymmetry-of-verification-and-...

replies(8): >>44610262 #>>44610288 #>>44610349 #>>44610664 #>>44610947 #>>44611931 #>>44614230 #>>44614473 #
1. Tainnor ◴[] No.44614473[source]
Mathematics cannot be "solved", that's a consequence of Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem.

It can already be "cheaply verified" in the sense that if you write a proof in, say, Lean, the compiler will tell if you if it's valid. The hard part is coming up with the proof.

It may be possible that some sort of AI at some stage becomes as good, or even better than, research mathematicians in coming up with novel proofs. But so far it doesn't look like it - LLMs seem to be able to help a little bit with finding theorems (e.g. stuff like https://leansearch.net/), but to my understanding they are rather poor beyond that.