Diego Córdoba and Luis Martínez‑Zoroa’s research is the foundation of the announcement that artificial intelligence has solved one of the greatest enigmas in history. Both believe the achievement will radically change the discipline
Search bots that have ingested speech patterns. Psycholinguistics is traceable down to codons, sure, but the meaning and nuance is lost. Lewis Carroll is probably LLM kryptonite, for example.
AI is a PR pick for a name. A name to lure in investors. It attributes so much more to the bots and invokes curiosity in everyone around it. Versus language bot or some other not so sexy name.
Producing a correct answer doesn’t imply comprehension, using the word “solve” doesn’t imply comprehension. Computers have been “solving” math problems for decades.
There is no attribution of comprehension implied in that phrase.
Yeah there wasn’t a pre written or rewritten guess, it’s combining other ideas (processes) to get to a desired point. It’s novel, but it’s not conscious and derived from creativity on its own. And that’s fine. It’s a tool. It’s the most complex computational tool developed outside of quantum computing, and that’s pretty neat. It might also turn out to be really useful. The problem is the tech bros won’t use it long term for good, because good isn’t as profitable as using it for war, for mass surveillance, for oppression.
That’s not what this is doing. At all. It’s saying it produced a solution.
Edit: Y’all, mathematicians literally use deterministic algorithms called SAT solvers that solve the Boolean satisfiability problem. Saying an algorithm “solved” a math problem is not ascribing it comprehension or agency.
Some more context on sat and first order solvers in math: the first open math problem solved autonomously by a computer was in 1997, well before the advent of generative ai.
It’s the age of AI, words don’t mean anything anymore. They only point to other words. The word “solve” may have a “definition” but that’s irrelevant compared to how the word makes me feel.
The LLM didn’t ‘solve’ anything, it regurgitated a guess.
Stop attributing comprehension and agency to something which is intrinsically incapable of possessing it.
Search bots that have ingested speech patterns. Psycholinguistics is traceable down to codons, sure, but the meaning and nuance is lost. Lewis Carroll is probably LLM kryptonite, for example.
AI is a PR pick for a name. A name to lure in investors. It attributes so much more to the bots and invokes curiosity in everyone around it. Versus language bot or some other not so sexy name.
Producing a correct answer doesn’t imply comprehension, using the word “solve” doesn’t imply comprehension. Computers have been “solving” math problems for decades.
There is no attribution of comprehension implied in that phrase.
Yeah there wasn’t a pre written or rewritten guess, it’s combining other ideas (processes) to get to a desired point. It’s novel, but it’s not conscious and derived from creativity on its own. And that’s fine. It’s a tool. It’s the most complex computational tool developed outside of quantum computing, and that’s pretty neat. It might also turn out to be really useful. The problem is the tech bros won’t use it long term for good, because good isn’t as profitable as using it for war, for mass surveillance, for oppression.
That’s not what this is doing. At all. It’s saying it produced a solution.
Edit: Y’all, mathematicians literally use deterministic algorithms called SAT solvers that solve the Boolean satisfiability problem. Saying an algorithm “solved” a math problem is not ascribing it comprehension or agency.
Some more context on sat and first order solvers in math: the first open math problem solved autonomously by a computer was in 1997, well before the advent of generative ai.
It’s the age of AI, words don’t mean anything anymore. They only point to other words. The word “solve” may have a “definition” but that’s irrelevant compared to how the word makes me feel.
That’s literally always been true. Humans are emotional speakers and use language that feels right more than we use language that factually accurate.
The spicies have been trying to tell you this for decades.
Using non anthropomorphic language for AI just makes discussing it more obtuse and complex for no reason.
Also answers are much much much less interesting than the steps to the solution and reasoning, which can be applied to future problems