Comment by famouswaffles
6 days ago
>It's interesting to me that whenever some new result in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to gesticulate wildly that that the sky is falling and AGI is imminent.
Really? Is that happening in this thread because I can barely see it. Instead you have a bunch of asinine comments butthurt about acknowledging a GPT contribution that would have been acknowledged any day had a human done it.
>they know more about this than Fields medalist Terence Tao, who maintains this list showing that, yes, though these are not interesting proofs to most modern mathematicians, LLMs are a major factor in a tiny minority of these mostly-not-very-interesting proofs
This is part of the problem really. Your framing is disingenuous and I don't really understand why you feel the need to downplay it so. They are interesting proofs. They are documented for a reason. It's not cutting edge research, but it is LLMs contributing meaningfully to formal mathematics, something that was speculative just years ago.
> Your framing is weirdly disingenuous
I am not surprised that you can't understand that the quote I am making is obviously parodying the OP as disingenuous. Given our previous interactions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46938446), it is clear you don't understand much things about AI and/or LLMs, or, perhaps, basic communication, at all.
OP's original comment is something that is actually happening in a bunch of comments on this very thread, and yours...not even remotely. You certainly tried to paint it as disingenuous but it really just fell flat. I'm not surprised you failed to understand that though.
>Given our previous interactions (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46938446), it is clear you don't understand much things about AI and/or LLMs at all.
Sure, Whatever makes you happy I guess.
> It's interesting to me that whenever a new breakthrough in AI use comes up, there's always a flood of people who come in to handwave away why this isn't actually a win for LLMs.
>> OP's original comment is something that is actually happening in a bunch of comments on this very thread
OPs original comment was obviously a general claim not tied to responses to this thread. As usual, you fail to understand even the basics of what you are talking about.
1 reply →