norgitov/ trends
Технологии · люди · идеи
К обзору/LessWrong2 минуты назад

Are OpenAI's math results "creative" in an important way?

Many people expect the AI paradigm to approximately AGI complete, and expect it to smoothly scale to AI that can do innovative science. i.e. the kind of science you'd need to do to develop a plague from scratch that actually kills all humans, with very limited opportunity to experiment. Or, the kind of science you'd need to solve alignment, so you could build a more powerful successor AI that shares your values. A periodic thread of disagreement has been @TsviBT, @Steven Byrnes and some others arguing that, yes, the AIs are getting better at verifiable tasks, but they still seem to be missing some basic sauce that lets them actually form new concepts on the fly and apply them. The AIs are getting better at "brute force creativity", where you try every single idea ever devised by Man in parallel and maybe one of them works. But there's still a kind of creativity that a) would have way higher efficiency and b) is maybe necessary for doing some kinds of breakthrough work. On one hand, my subjective experience has been seeing AIs be able to demonstrate increasingly interesting judgement and taste in increasingly many domains (even open-ended ones). But, I do indeed still run into AIs that get confused and "just don't get it", in a way that is pretty suggestive that there is still something significant missing. OpenAI has lately been shipping some major results in mathematics, for problems that people had previously agreed were important and hard. But, I'd heard for previous results that the proofs turned out sort of "not actually interesting", compared to how sometimes makes you go "Holy shit that's beautiful/elegant/surprising" and conveys someone is a level above you." Recently they shipped a lot of new proofs on important problems. I'm not a math guy. But, seems fairly important for some people with enough context to wade through them and figure out "What sort of cognition was involved here?". Do any of the proofs have the vibe of AlphaGo's Move 37? Does it inv

Перевод готовится · пока описание источника
Открыть первоисточник
СИГНАЛ ИЗ ИСТОЧНИКА
30
очков источника
Наблюдаем с7 октября 2026 г.30 очков источника
Темп интереса+17,41/hпо замерам за 1,03 h
Опубликовано7 октября 2026 г.Raemon
ЗА ЦИФРАМИ

Как меняется интерес

История начинает расти

График появится после повторных замеров. Текущий показатель уже получен из источника.

30 очков источника

Только реальные замеры. История до подключения источника не восстанавливается.

Полезная находка?
ПРОДОЛЖИ ИССЛЕДОВАНИЕ

Рядом по теме

Вся тема