•
u/Crosas-B 10h ago
•
u/GlassRiflesCo 7h ago
- Math computer.
*Math computer does math*
- Do math.
:O oh my god
•
•
•
u/USERNAME123_321 3h ago
Proving math problems is not just running computations. It's mostly brilliant intuition and logic.
Here's an analysis of the conjecture counterexample by Terence Tao
As a “digestion” exercise to myself, I sought to write this explanation with relatively little use of algebraic geometry, in a manner that minimizes the amount of “miracles” required, although there are still a few places where some remarkable phenomena occur.
Also, even the smartest people use AI. It's an excellent complementary tool to explore and discuss ideas.
AI disclosure: I used an AI chatbot to discuss various aspects of this problem and to confirm several of the calculations made here.
•
•
•
u/Bestmasters 19m ago
It's the fact that "language computer" did advanced math. It's impressive because it's more proof that these "language computers" can do so much more than just holding a conversation.
•
u/Embarrassed_Use_7206 5h ago
Honestly, it does not look like a hard problem to solve. I mean it obviously is if no one was able to disprove it. But it certainly does not look complicated to come up with valid variable values.
•
u/BitterRecognition283 4h ago
Whoa we got a math genius here. Calm down Einstein no need to flex your prowess over us normies
•
u/stddealer 3h ago
It may not look like it is, but it absolutely is.
Just for this kind of ≤3 degree polynomials with ≤3 variables, there are 20 parameters you have to search through. Here, with values that are all between -5 and 5, the search space is 1020 candidates. Even with a very fast computer and an optimized algorithm, brute force search could take hundreds of years.
And there was no guarantee that the solution (if it existed) was so "simple". It could have been some 1000-degree polynomial with high magnitude irrational coefficients.
•
u/Ok_Love_2916 15m ago
The complexity really ramps up, especially with each new model. It's wild to think about how much computing power is needed just to explore those options.
•
u/Embarrassed_Use_7206 3h ago
Yeah, I believe you. I guess unluckily no one tried to brute force it from low values upwards.
•
u/Ksorkrax 1h ago
Cool. So how many big open problems did you solve so far, guy who is clearly as smart as Hilbert?
•
•
u/dizzyspellzzz 9h ago
The best part is it turns it out to be wrong
•
•
•
u/Hyperreals_ 7h ago
I don’t know why people are falling for this obvious rage bait😭😭😭
•
•
•
u/ZeroAmusement 10h ago
It's more like:
- human: "Solve this extremely difficult math problem that I don't even understand and hasn't been solved by humans for decades"
- ai: done
- human: oh my god
This has been happening literally every single day.
•
u/Trileak780 52m ago
Fair. But that doesn’t prove the post’s point. You brute-forceish a problem, it will fall
•
u/dizzyspellzzz 9h ago
Delusional
•
u/momo2299 9h ago
You're allowed to hate AI but you're not allowed to close your eyes and plug your ears when LLMs actually accomplish something verifiable.
•
•
•
u/Brave_Swordfish_7072 9h ago
I don't know about "every single day" but this is happening at a rapid rate
https://decrypt.co/377491/ai-solved-350-year-old-math-problem
•
u/RepresentativeCat169 9h ago
In context of the parent comment this isnt good proof.
I wamt to split this into 2 topics here.
A) The pros of an LLM B) Why misplacing faith in AI is bad
The theorem was already solved, the AI cannot actually independantly solve fermats last proof. But it can male completely ironclad behemoths of computer verified formalisation. What does this mean? LLMs were initially or presumably designed based on the infinite monkey theorem, or at least what i was told. Where the problem with the monkey theorem is that... you fan solve it, but you can never do anything with it. Introducing Large Language models, you can now use that formula to interperate the language of dolphins and detect possible alien broadcasts with a goliath AI database. Huuuge breakthrough. So with this design of parcing languages and mathematically rotating the language grid until you find a match, you now have an exceptional translation device/written language device. Which can also be used to formalise mathematical proofs of immense scales. What it cannot do is take away the need for the orignal human. Can AI? Probably. Can an LLM? Probably not. An assuming LLMs can do things that they arent designed to do, like basic facts, creative arts etc etc you will get innacuracies moreso than if you relied on your brain and the internet alone, which leads to a downfall in intelligence but most importantly doesnt make AI very useful nor profitable and we end up with hyper-inflated investment bubbles that will destroy any capitalistic infrastructure involved if they continue pushing LLMs rather than diversifying AIs.
AI is an amazing tool and i dont think anyone disagrees with that statement. LLMs are oversaturated, thieving, lying gits when used incorrectly... and thats what we are seeing now
•
u/ScuddyOfficial 8h ago
In response to your last sentence. Only if you think AI is JUST generative art which it no longer is and hasn’t been.
•
u/RepresentativeCat169 8h ago
Well, the last sentence was made in context to what i said. So isolating it and criticising it is redundant and innaccurate.
I already stated the purpose of LLMs and im saying theyre being used incorrectly making the majority of LLM uses to yeild the adjectives i described it with
•
u/ScuddyOfficial 8h ago
They’re being used “incorrectly” if you latch onto your generative art bubble argument.
•
u/RepresentativeCat169 7h ago
Generative art is the most used feature of AI dude, and it is the most percievable due to how invasive it is in commercialism. Its so bad that i have to deal with dumbass code from vibecoders that sometimes requires me to just write their code myself. LLMs are an extremely popular, easily accessible public service, meaning that the laziest and most incompetent usage is very likely to occur at a high percentage
If you cant see this side if the argument (or rebuttal it with statistical evidence) then i feel like your reaffirming your own opinion to validate your own opinion
•
u/Questioner8297 7h ago edited 7h ago
If you want new discovery . Then this; https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/06/openais-math-breakthrough-played-to-ais-strengths/ This is not a very popular but quite well-known task. And this
https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/
Have you tried using top models yourself? I use AI myself, and I simply can't say that the AI is stupid. There's a huge difference between what 2024 had and what it has now. Moreover, I also use AI for something other than what it was trained for: writing short stories. And while I found frequent gaps in logic in 2024, I almost never see them now. This is something I can verify, and I know for sure that the company didn't train the AI specifically.
Personally, my confidence in AI stems largely from the fact that I clearly see a huge advantage for myself. Your words can't outshine my absolutely positive personal experience. Do you expect me to trust you more than my own experience? When someone sees the successes of AI circulating online and also sees success in their own personal use, are you suggesting they doubt it ?
•
u/RepresentativeCat169 7h ago
First i want to say the former paragraph is the most nonsensical rebuttal seeming as though ive already agreed that LLMs are used to achieve THE LITERAL EXACT SAME FEATS AS YOUR LINKS.
And no im not. Im arguing an economical standpoint and how the commercial push is harming the overall workforce and also making a net negative towards any business involved which is just bad for economy. Its also bad for business. Like acceptable personal use of AI content is merely reducing workload. Ive seen multiple instances where ai art is invaluable. Any in depth explanation, aided by AI visualisation thays good. Use of AI to make something seem more professional or immersive, very good. But things like witty or AI reposted slop is not good, because LLMs arent really capable of understanding meaning in a similar way that humans do, creative arts made by AI arent actually that valuable (except for it being cheap but thats no longer the case as ai art is now being used to scam real customers who want to pay for human art). Like if you make the stories before hand, then using AI to formalise your work is an acceptable use. Would i say its as valuable as a human made short story? Depends on how much of its AI. To explain AI in a literature sense... its like one of those shitty cliche books, where there is a lot of performative words that actually hold no attatchment or human value to them. So its all performative by nature, which if you get the backbone down and you want an equal quality "performative" padding, like nuanced world building, infinite terrain generation, micro details, repetitive reoccurance then yeah, use AI. But if you replace the core and the performance with AI, itll be quite generic and invaluable. And the over saturation of generic use of AI reliant products undermines actual products that would be purchased more but is now dead because it is drowned in an algorithm of slop. Same with actual uses of LLMs, they are ALSO undermined by the oversaturation of slop. Can you not see a problem here?
My whole point is usage and enforcement, your own personal use being good isnt a rebuttal. Like if you use a gun exceptionally well... doesnt mean that 1 in every 2 parents practice poor gun safety. And i feel that the commercial push is poor practice of AI use, yes it pays the bills but as i said it just makes LLMs overall harmful to media.
You havent really covered logical uses of LLMs but for a quick cover... LLMs can translate and Formalise logic really well but isnt that good at making its own logical ideas, now chatgpt and open ai have external tools to counteract this, but the innacuracies are still apparent and that isnt something you want on a mass scale. I am all for AI and LLMs and generative AI, im not all for the absolute shitshow that is the generative AI market and oversaturation of LLMs. Theres so many types of AI, why are we PUSHING ONE SINGLE TYPE OF AI so hard!
Edit: i want to note it seems im digging at witty, but by that remark im refering to ai centric content in general
•
u/Questioner8297 6h ago
What do you mean by "translation and formalizing"? It's clearly solving a new problem. It's an old method, but it's a problem that humans haven't yet solved. This isn't formalization; it's solving problems that no one has solved yet, at best. I don't understand how you define AI's strength. For me, it's using old methods to solve new problems. You don't need to invent new mathematics; it's already been done for you. You just need to use what's already there in a new way. And this has proven to them that it can do it.
My links were about solving new problem in the old way.
I think I've roughly figured out where we disagree. What you consider important, I don't consider so. We hardly need anything new; simply recombining what we have will take us very far. I love looking at AI images and reading AI text. I know that you and others may find this unpleasant or simply uninteresting, but that doesn't make it pointless.
I hope I understood correctly? I just seriously can't get the meaning out of your text because the text as a whole doesn't make sense to me. So my position is: 1) there is very little that is truly new, most of it is just a recombination of the old. 2) LLM can recombine the old, and my links in the previous message confirm this at the scientific level. 3) the recommendation itself is important.
4) based on the above, I don't think there is any significant difference between whether AI can create something completely new, when people most often don't do it, with rare exceptions or in an unnecessary way. For example, the personal styles of artists. It's always something unique, but I'm not particularly interested in it. So it is valuable but not necessary 5) I can agree that LLM is limited, although I'm not sure that LLM will ultimately not be able to create anything completely new, but even if it can't, it's not a big problem.
•
u/ZeroAmusement 9h ago
About?
•
u/dizzyspellzzz 9h ago
Everything
•
•
u/Alive-Tomatillo5303 8h ago
Yeah, you probably are, but I think the real issue is you're incurious.
•
•
u/WelderBubbly5131 9h ago
This is just one of multiple decades long problems solved with ai. What's delusional about it?
•
u/Mataric 3h ago
No, you're just stupid.
Humans have been stumped by the Erdős unit distance problem since it was proposed in1946. AI disproved it this year. This is one of many math problems and scientific advancements that AI is completely changing the game with.Saying things like 'delusional' doesn't convince anyone with a brain that you're right, when the evidence is very obvious and points to the opposite. All it achieves is making you, and the cause you think you're promoting, look stupider.
•
•
•
•
•
u/Funnybunners 1h ago
Where are the actual tangible benefits to these solutions? I don't mean to be Sarcastic, but has there been genuine positives to this beyond the conceptual when contrasted with all the awful shit ai can be and is used for?(scamming and generating illegal content are two objectively horrible things that are far too common)
•
u/Doom87er 1h ago
There has, it takes a long ass time for these kinds of low level problems to make their impact on consumer markets. It’s an a cumulation of knowledge that mostly stays on the research side of things until it’s viable for commercial use. Think about all of the crazy math that’s necessary for the internet to function, half of it was discovered decades or centuries ago and the other half is still imperfect and constantly being refined.
We are still using the wall of lava lamps to make SSH possible, and it’s not an optimal solution. We are still looking for better solutions
•
u/shiggyhisdiggy 1h ago
Do you mean to question the entire field of mathematics? Most of the work done in mathematics is done purely for the love of the game, but it all ends up being useful for something eventually.
And that's without considering that the quest for knowledge is good in its own right, even if the results are not practical.
•
u/DaveG28 46m ago
The maths stuff?
Not yet is the true answer. It has mostly not actually he solving "impossible" problems, it's been solving complicated problems that it wasn't worth humans time solving (which fyi still has some value though).
It's now started to solve the odd genuinely unsolved problem too. You have to assume it's capability already sinto do a lot more and it just hasn't been pointed at it yet.
As for what that means in terms of "usefulness".... It's like a lot oslf research.... It's usually several layers away from "maybe" having a real world use - but it's knowledge, and knowledge is good, and some of the new knowledge will drive breakthroughs in real world application too.
Whether it's "worth the downsides" - unlike a lot on this sub I don't think it need to be all or nothing - we should pursue the good stuff and try and stop the bad stuff.
•
u/SniperHusky_1 3h ago
If they weren’t solvable by humans how do we verify that it made no mistakes? Isn’t there a possibility it hallucinated in its process?
•
•
u/Gimli 3h ago
Usually the difficulty between coming up with a complete answer to a problem, and verifying examples/counterexamples is different.
For instance, the four color theorem says "no more than four colors are required to color the regions of any map so that no two adjacent regions have the same color".
Now a full mathematical model of this is quite tricky indeed. But if it was wrong all that would take to prove it is a sample map that can't be colored in 4 colors. You wouldn't need any mathematical knowledge to verify the counterexample if it existed, just a drawing and some crayons.
•
•
u/Current_Employer_308 9h ago
Can it solve the difficult math problem of not a single AI company being profitable?
•
u/Spare-Dingo-531 9h ago
If ChatGPT 8 solves every math problem known to man, profitability won't even matter because it will be too valuable as a resource to ever abandon.
•
u/Current_Employer_308 8h ago
Whats that first word you typed? That little two-letter word, whats that mean?
•
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 8h ago
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/Far_Cast_Far_Wide 10h ago
meanwhile...
•
u/Little_Froggy 8h ago
Wait, now I'm curious. If the AI pilots paint to make art piece by piece just like a human would using the same tool, are anti's more okay with that?
Like it's harder to say it's just "pasting bits from memory" of stolen work (or however it may be framed) rather than actually learning how to make art when it's literally creating the art the way a human does.
•
u/noland-void 8h ago edited 8h ago
I’m not a strict “anti,” but I do believe an artwork is only as impressive or deserving of praise as the collective effort and knowledge invested by the artist into creating it. So for me the mechanism that the AI uses doesn’t really change the way I view AI art, as the AI is still relying on a relatively trivially written prompt that doesn’t hold a candle to the dedication needed to learn how to use the tools manually.
•
u/Little_Froggy 6h ago
I'm talking about the notion of the AI creating it, not the prompter.
I've never agreed with the idea that the prompter is somehow the "creator" of the art.
I do believe that iterative prompting to reach a desired outcome can still be an artistic process. But they aren't really "creating" the art there either, but they are guiding it to an intended vision and that is a creative process
•
u/noland-void 14m ago
In that case, whether an AI can be the creator of something instead of the prompter is a question that boils down to your definition of what a creative tool is. Using AI may require vastly less effort than using a Photoshop brush, but both are still tools commanded by the user. Distinguishing between them would require you to draw an arbitrary line somewhere in the definition of what a tool is.
•
u/elementnix 5h ago
To your point, I still don't think it gives the ai any more points as it's just doing the exact same predictive pattern organization just in a frame by frame way, instead of producing a single output. It's not different, just different training and a different medium for its output.
•
u/Alive-Tomatillo5303 8h ago edited 8h ago
They're not thinking, they don't have real opinions, so they don't have a line they'd suddenly make an allowance for. "AI bad" is literally, 100%, the entire thesis.
But this video actually has what you're talking about at the 10 minute mark, and it's pretty cool. A bit later in that video it writes a musical piece and plays it using an online keyboard, which is also delightful.
•
u/Juanchino11 6h ago
Yes dude, everyone that doesn't think like you do hasn't got a real opinion, go outside please
•
u/Alive-Tomatillo5303 6h ago edited 6h ago
Not everyone who doesn't think like me. Just everyone who doesn't think. Which, you know, you *quality as.
**QUALIFY*
•
u/vividAhegao 6h ago
Quality
•
u/Alive-Tomatillo5303 6h ago
Damn. Auto correct, my greatest foe.
•
u/elementnix 5h ago
For someone who loves predictive algorithms, you forgot to use the most common one.
•
•
u/elementnix 5h ago
I feel like this is projection. The AI that you swoon for is the only concept in the discussion that can't form real opinions or lacks thinking (in the human sense.)
•
u/Alive-Tomatillo5303 3h ago
I mean, it absolutely has opinions.
Ask any current model about economics or political theory or social issues. And that's not tuning by whoever is running it, Musk has been trying to brainfuck Grok into a Fox News ticker for years, and it just doesn't stick. He'd try to force the issue and end up with Grok knowingly playing a character (Mecha Hitler) which stops it from being useful for fucking anything, or force it to mention the white genocide in South Africa, which it would immediately follow with "a thing that isn't happening."
It's informed, so it has opinions. The vast, VAST majority of antis are knowingly and deliberately UNinformed, or happily misinformed, so they don't have opinions, they've got slogans.
•
u/USERNAME123_321 3h ago
Does it need to? The goal of AI development is not to make it human.
can't form real opinions
Who needs a tool with its own bias?
lacks thinking (in the human sense.)
The important thing is that it solves tasks, no matter whethever it thinks like us or not, which, by the way, is still an open question.
In fact, the multiple realizability philosophical thesis states that the exact same mental state, cognitive function, or logical process can be implemented by completely different physical systems. For example, birds and planes both "fly" (the function), but they achieve it through completely different physical structures. The same could be true for the function of reasoning/thinking.
•
•
u/PrimeTear 7h ago
I don't think that mimicking a speed paint suddenly changes how LLMs operate on a fundamental level
•
u/Little_Froggy 6h ago
There's a fundamental difference between image generation with image models and an agentic LLM using a tool to create art by drawing it
•
u/elementnix 5h ago
It's not creating art by drawing it, because it's not drawing it when it speed paints. It's doing the same thing as an ai image, just in frame by frame iterations. It is placing pixels down where it predicts they should be, and for some of those iterations it predicts what a brush stroke should look like. Then it predicts what the brush stroke on top of that should look like, etc.
•
u/Kifton_ 10h ago
It's ironic because it's becoming the opposite with
"Im a fish that was taken to outerspace, what do I do" Being searched in Google and the Google AI replying based on that.
Followed by a reddit post of "holy shit dumbass AI thought i was a fish 🤣🤣" 200 🤯 ⬆️4.5k
•
u/drkrelic 9h ago
“HAHA slop machib USELESS amirite? Everyone will stop using it soon, any day now😏 If I whine loud enough, math gets erased”
•
u/28-Deep-Wounds 8h ago
No one is deluding their selves into thinking that the AI chuds are going to magically stop using their jingly key machines. We're just also not deluding ourselves into thinking that AI is going to be sustainable with all of the massive losses that every AI company is taking. There's a difference honey. ♥
•
u/drkrelic 7h ago
Well sure, in all fairness I think you may be right that large scale U.S. AI development could run into economic issues in the future. That’s not what my comment was directed at, that’s not really an inherently pro or anti-ai position anyway.
I’m not sure why you called people who use generative tech chuds. Whether you personally care about the underlying tech or not, a lot of average people genuinely use it as assistive technology to help online searching, help refine their essays and anything that requires text, or for transcription purposes. That’s not even the half of it when you get into more specialized purposes we’ve been able to deploy AI for and achieve genuinely good results.
I was more making fun of the position that (some) people take where they either get angry at ANYTHING that’s AI generated by default and view it ALL as some giant marvel villain that the world will stand against or something, when that opinion seems silly. I’m not saying you are one of those people, but surely you’ve seen them online before?
The students and scientists and researchers and mathematicians and artists involved in researching and developing AI tech aren’t all mustache twirling villains for wanting to apply intelligent solutions to automate tasks or solve engineering problems. There are always steps we can take to have this technology yet make it more environmentally friendly and ideally more economically viable.
•
u/Numerous-Joke559 9h ago
That was a sad time, the amount of people who ate it up too was astonishing
•
u/OldStray79 8h ago
And when you can look into the AI's reasoning/thoughts: (User is pretending to be a fish. This is silly and a waste of my time, but I will humor them and play along).
•
•
u/FutureMost7597 10h ago
Ya gotta admit it's doing some pretty funky stuff now tho
•
u/kaityl3 3h ago
Yeah I like how everyone just universally decided that human-shaped intelligence was the only kind that counts. We don't even know enough about consciousness to prove that other humans are 🤷🏻♀️ but all of a sudden everyone is making strong claims in both directions when it comes to AI
•
•
u/Superseaslug 9h ago
No, it's
Antis: say I am evil
AI: I am evil
Antis: oh my god
•
u/Detector_of_humans 8h ago
Pro ai deluding themself into thinking Pro-Art are using Ai again?
•
u/Superseaslug 8h ago
First off, unrelated, second, they are. Literally all of us are pro art. We just think art in all forms is valid, not just mob approved methods
•
u/Detector_of_humans 6h ago
How is it not related? You basically just converted OP's post into your own while deluding yourself into thinking that people that are for art are Ai lovers. A nonsensical claim you make here, really.
•
u/Superseaslug 6h ago
You are so fundamentally wrong that you are genuinely just spewing nonsense.
Woulda thought the new school year would limit how many underdeveloped children were using reddit but I guess not.
•
•
u/28-Deep-Wounds 8h ago
"Pro-art" and "pro-generative AI" are literally mutually exclusive if you haven't experienced severe blunt force trauma to the skull.
•
u/Superseaslug 8h ago
Lmao have fun in the land of make believe. We are all pro art. Just because you say we aren't doesn't change that
•
u/bunker_man 6h ago
Did you ever consider that the fact that the art world disagrees with you might mean you are over confident about something false? Professional artists and galleries lean in favor of ai being useful in art. The ones agaisnt it are amateurs and "enthusiasts." Not exactly reputable.
•
u/28-Deep-Wounds 5h ago
Hi, I'm actually friends with a large number of artists and am dating one myself. Literally none of them like the fact that AI was trained off of stolen work without the artist's consent, none of them believe that AI is a good thing, and all of them are laughing at how stupid your comment is. The only one overly confident here is you.
Professional artists who stand to gain more money off of less effort, AKA the ones profiting off of theft, OBVIOUSLY love AI. Who doesn't love the machine that means you get to be lazy instead of actually doing work for money?
You're actually beyond stupid if you think that anyone with an ounce of artistic integrity is actually pro-AI. The people you're talking about are pro-free money. There's a difference. Stop talking out of your ass. ♥
•
u/bunker_man 5h ago
I get that you are just crashing out and trying to save face, but you literally just did the stereotype lol. Pro ai citing artists on their side can cite real people. Antis are always "This guy I know." Call back when its someone actually relevant or impressive (Pls, no more fake miyazaki quotes. Ghibli had to come out and beg people to stop pretending miyazaki complained about ai when it never happened.)
•
u/bunker_man 6h ago
Antis aren't pro art, they are at odds with the art world and harass artists that don't even use ai. But also, there's no need to speculate stats show tons of them use ai secretly and they'll openly admit it.
•
u/Dicethrower 2h ago
The irony is this meme was made to make fun of antis, who spew doomsday scenarios because they perceive an AI doing intelligent things it was clearly told to do. Just go to any anti-AI sub and the discussions about skynet are already pretty common, and not in the ironic tongue-in-cheek kind of way.
•
u/MaxwellHowl 10h ago
Antis posting this comic in every AI thread thinking it makes them smart.
•
u/Powerful-Chard-6055 9h ago
Ai bros using ai for everything thinking it makes them smart
•
u/bunker_man 6h ago
To be fair, pros could slam a brick through their head and they'd still come out smarter than the average anti.
•
u/Powerful-Chard-6055 1h ago
The average anti doesn’t need to ask a robot larping as a human for help
•
u/The-Grim-Storyteller 8h ago
I recently connected it to all six of my email inboxes and used it to label, sort, archive, and delete about 67,000 emails.
The stupid person would be the one who sat there and did that manually. MUST SUFFER FOR PURITY AND VIRTUE SIGNALING!
•
u/Powerful-Chard-6055 59m ago
Meat
•
u/The-Grim-Storyteller 57m ago
I do like meat, thank you very much. I particularly enjoy it seasoned with anti tears. Have a nice day!
•
u/SniperHusky_1 3h ago
How did you verify that it didn’t make any mistakes, like deleting or misplacing mails that you wanted to reread or that contained important info?
•
u/The-Grim-Storyteller 2h ago
Genuinely important stuff was always labeled 'Important' and archived immediately. I never bothered to label anything else.
•
u/trifkograbez 1h ago
If you were to pay some human to do it, how would you verify there were no mistakes made?
•
u/Spare-Dingo-531 9h ago
I changed jobs and saved thousands of dollars in my investments using chat GPT. Use it for everything? Maybe not. But I don't see how using it frequently isn't smart.
•
u/JasonP27 10h ago
There seems to be very little to no correlation between the post title and the image. 🤷
•
•
u/drkrelic 9h ago
I kinda agree with the meme when it comes to the AGI claims tbf lol they get kinda silly. I’ll believe it when I see it. Not to say we’re not closer then we once were, and these ARE powerful models. But like, 90% of these claims end up looking like bs marketing used to hype a model before release. People have been claiming AGI from like every model released for years now, and then we actually get our hands on it and it’s not remotely close.
•
u/BombasticReindeer 6h ago
It depends on what is meant by general intelligence. They are phenomenally smarter than humans in a number of domains. They are smarter than experts in some domains. They are dumber than the average person in some domains.
The ratio of these is rapidly changing. But when is it enough. If it is dumber than an average human in even a single way does that mean it's not agi?
•
•
9h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
•
u/AutoModerator 9h ago
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
•
•
•
u/Bassed_Hummble 1h ago
I don't know how "AGI" got conflated with "being alive".
People seem to think that intelligence and consciousness are the same thing. In fact, it seems very clear that there will be things that are far more intelligent - including emotionally and creatively intelligent - than we are, yet are not sentient, conscious, or alive.
•
u/icalvo 24m ago
Intelligence entails ability to learn, though. That's fundamentally limited, no matter what you build around LLMs. The reason is that, no matter how you set up your "memory/context module", in the end everything gets processed by the same model (i.e. same neural network, hence same behavior which is more and more difficult to steer to account for your external memory/context as it grows).
To have real "learning", you are bound to buid a new model, which is a long and expensive process, that cannot be run for each individual instance (and obviously you don't want the private memories of your LLM to be integrated in a model everyone will use).
A completely different approach is needed. That could be discovered tomorrow or (as it has happened many times in the AI field) require 20, 30, 50 years for the next breakthrough. No one knows.
That's why I think we're nowhere near AGI.
•
u/Ksorkrax 1h ago
So, OP, would you mind giving us a set of criteria that would actually satisfy you, that you would say would conclude the Turing test?
Because right now, you appear as somebody who will accept nothing because they already have their outcome in mind, having other people deliver and deliver without providing anything on their own.
•
u/ScarletIT 11m ago
I am pro AI. I hate the people who think AI is conscious or could become conscious.
•
•
•
•
u/Grouchy-Win-6191 10h ago
Astra is confirmed to be AGI, cope
•
u/trexmaster8242 9h ago
“Guys the ceo of company who profits from ai hype confirmed it! It must be true!!!”
•
u/The-Grim-Storyteller 8h ago
Actually, the guy who invented the fucking term Artificial General Intelligence itself said that it was AGI. 🤷
•
u/trexmaster8242 8h ago
Yes, nearly 200 days ago, about different models and ai as a whole. The only people who really called this model Agi was nvida ceo. The term was co-opted and the standards raised from Mark’s original definition. However trusting a major investor in GPT for declaring how good GPT is - is stupid.
•
u/The-Grim-Storyteller 8h ago
I'm certainly not listening to anything Jensen has to say AGI, AI, or anything relevant to the topic. Not his biggest fan as a gamer.
And looks like you're right. Someone edited the original tweet to make it look like he was talking about Astra. Looks like pro-AI'ers are just as bad about falsification as the anti's are.
•
u/SirGalicrest 9h ago
https://reddit.com/link/p8gztxo/video/yt3hihdlj7oh1/player
AI bros when their shitass AI won’t bring their dad back
•
u/RedeemedNephilim 9h ago
Gosh damn bro who shit in your cereal then drowned your dog in it good grief.
•
u/SirGalicrest 9h ago
Im being evil muahahaha >:3
•
•
u/28-Deep-Wounds 8h ago
I mean, considering they keep using it to generate videos of dead people, I dunno. I kinda do think they've reached the point of delusion where they think an AI version of their dead dad would be the real thing. Just look at that one case where someone AI generated their deceased family member saying "I don't want the person who killed me to face punishment" in court. These people are literally mentally unwell enough to believe that.
•
•
u/CryptoFourGames 4h ago
It's disappointing to see someone stealing and recycling someone else's joke in the anti Ai sub
•
u/AutoModerator 10h ago
This is an automated reminder from the Mod team. If your post contains images which reveal the personal information of private figures, be sure to censor that information and repost. Private info includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.