Pinned Tweet
Also this is a reminder that stylus writing is life and I will never, never go back to tap-tap-tapping away like the animals do, so the typos are have to stay.
Blaise! retweeted
Last week and a half hanging out with my elderly father-in-law in Pittsburgh.
He has a suitcase of WW1 letters between his father and uncle (in service) and his grandparents.
Many were in an undecipherable language he called Slavish.
Nobody could read them.
excellent time to take a moment to appreciate what an awesome achievement the classification (aka "The Fifty Years War") was
This, from Gorenstein in 1979, points exactly at formalization, which now seems achieved, is so valuable. (It turned out quite a bit more heavy lifting on the classification than realized at this point was still to be done - it really all was a huge effort and collaboration)
Blaise! retweeted
formalizing the classification of finite simple groups is a huge W for the machines for sure. on the other hand, the classification actually being correct in the end is a huge W for humans, so we can call it a draw
incredibly bullish news for P=NP believers, who I may have been slandering as "drooling morons" for decades
bullish news for simulation hypothesis believers
Yang-Mills existence is, somehow, the second-most important part of the third-biggest story from today's drop by OpenAl
We live in an age of wonders
It's reassuring to step back and remember: the world hasn't just gone mad. The world was mad to start with and we're just finding out about it.
Here's a direct link to OpenAI's PDF claiming a refutation of ETH. In particular, it's claimed that 3SAT on n variables is in about exp(n/(log n)^{1/2+o(1)}) time
github.com/openai/math/blob/…
Holy shit: local smoothing, all dimensions. OpenAl.
Background here: quantamagazine.org/a-tower-o…
Important to remember humans had been doing fabulous math building up understanding of less general conjectures.
openai.com/index/building-sc…
There's more. Complexity theorists have a busy month ahead of them. Be kind to them: their result will be coming as a shock.
they should make a romeo and juliet adaptation where they actually cast a 13 year old and an 18 year old
Blaise! retweeted
Je n'ai jamais compris cette take de "un humain doit comprendre les preuves".
Je suis loin d'être nul en math, pourtant la majorité écrasante des preuves publiées sont au delà de ma portée.
Elles sont même hors de portée d'un grand nombre de mathématiciens ne travaillant pas dans le domaine.
On est déjà dans un monde où des preuves sont comprises par...1000? 100 personnes sur terre?
Qu'est ce que ça changerait de passer à 0, fondamentallement?
J'insiste: le débat n'est pas sur l'importance de comprendre. Mais sur le fait qu'on est déjà dans un monde où statistiquement personne ne comprend les math frontières.
Replying to @MathdeProf @ProfesseurOni
Donc a quoi sert l'IA si elle produit soit trop de preuve pour être exploitable soit des preuves débile t complexe pour n'importe quelle humain, et bien tôt ça sera probablement les deux. On laisse l'IA exploiter elle même les résultats en renonçant à comprendre z tout jamais ?
Blaise! retweeted
Since I'm now blocked by bluey from replying to this thread, I answer here by quote tweet
the openAI construction has more to do with convex integration than anything else.
In convex integration, the oscillations are typically built by hand and the iteration procedure creates wild weak solutions. The non-uniqueness construction of Albritton–Brué–Colombo used an unstable vortex to split solutions apart. The Córdoba–Martínez-Zoroa singularities amplify vorticity across scales by strain. In the openAI paper, a fluid instability is clever made so that the flow itself generates the oscillations: they grow by drawing energy from the background shear. The Reynolds stress then becomes the force that creates the collapsing smooth vortex. Using a physical instability to create the stress in this way has no precedent, and it is what produces a smooth force rather than a merely rough one.
Some on these ideas are in the literature (e.g. Leibovich-Stewartson 1983) but the way they are combined is definitely insane and definitely nowhere in the literature previously.
I also don't know of anyone suggesting that convex integration would play a role in the creation of a blow-up solution like this.
On a technical level, the paper is unbelievable, maybe beyond what a human could have come up with but not beyond human understanding: there are several different groups of pde experts working on understanding it who say that they more or less understand now. I expect digestions soon
td;lr: anyone saying that this OAI result is unsurprising is bullshitting
sorry!
Replying to @scottnarmstrong @billionsmustliv
Or it’s reasonable. Especially considering what the models were trained on, and that they spent $15M in compute instead and of $15M in consulting fees for specialist mathematicians to just do research (no teaching no service).
I don’t know why mathematicians want to pretend that no relevant progress was made before OAI released their solution.
Blaise! retweeted
it's funny how many people seem to think we're still in the era of crafted artisanal prompt engineering. like nah gang, the current state of the art in prompting tech is to build rapport by having conversations with your AIs while being a decent human being.
This is the quieter, calmer version of something from a little while ago.
The author is still pointing at the same things worth knowing about, but has largely resolved the defects of that piece – half-cocked and carried away – that made easy targets for combatants.
An attempt to document important facts concerning AI Safety, Eliezer Yudkowsky, Rationalism and San Francisco Effective Altruism
verysane.ai/p/ai-safety-is-m…



















