I mean, it's very interesting, right? Because these can prove the Jacobian conjecture, you know, whatever. Uh and so clearly they're capable of these monumental feats. Um but somehow I still haven't read the LLM essay that I found super compelling.
While in mathematics AI agents are starting to have a major positive impact on research (e.g. by resolving the Jacobian conjecture), the situation is very different in hep-th.
I think the way that you'd measure conjecture generating ability is going to be more subjective on like that tone shift where um it'll be mathematicians saying they're not just using it to like solve their problems, but as they step back and decide what their research field should even be that a conversation with such and such model like was genuinely helpful for that.
Um but it would be possible and it would have been possible for somebody to disprove the erdos unit distance conjecture before we did using a general purpose model. And nobody had explored sufficiently what happens if I put $100,000 worth of compute into 5.5 what could it do?
Most people hear that story and think: he must have lacked talent, or commitment. I don’t think that’s the right conclusion. I think he was never taught how second language acquisition actually works, and so he spent hundreds of hours doing the wrong things.
A companies that have locked up, you know, and and don't have commitment issues, you know, have these 5-year contracts for compute, they've kind of locked in a humongous margin advantage because they've locked in compute for 5 years at a price of what it transacted at 5 years ago or three years ago or two years ago, whatever it is.
Because I think that the modern adherence to the electronic universe is disastrous for humans, and because it reduces the vitality of the human component. I think it’s restrictive in a way that people don’t realize until it’s too late.
So picking the right question is the hardest part of science and making the right hypothesis. And that's what today's systems definitely they can't do. So I often say it's harder to come up with a conjecture, a really good conjecture than it is to solve it.
Look, I think news and journalism will play an important role in the future. We are pretty committed to it, right? So I think making sure that ecosystem, in fact, I think we'll be able to differentiate ourselves as a company over time because of our commitment there.
It’s the work ethic, knowhow, commitment, combined with top notch infrastructure, that makes China the most powerful manufacturing country in the world today.
The longevity of that consensus is itself remarkable: in 79 years of data, Republican presidents spent an average of $34 billion a year on aid, while Democrats spent $40 billion.
While there are interesting theoretical arguments for these causes, there’s a disconnect between an almost-neurotic focus on hard evidence of effectiveness in some areas of EA and a willingness to accept extremely abstract and conjectural “evidence” in others.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.