Thread

1. rahidz · 1789909623 · focus · HN ↗

   Man I remember back when a psychic conned me by solving the Navier-Stokes problem.

   Also >July 4th, 2023

   1. krupan · 1789913180 · focus · HN ↗

      The LLM did not solve it. It's not intelligent. Humans did, using a statistics-based computational tool (the LLM). We don't even know all the details of how the tool was used, we haven't been allowed to use the exact tool they used ourselves, we don't know much it really cost in dollars, energy, or time, etc. etc.

      1. claytongulick · 1789914519 · focus · HN ↗

         And it may have trained on a NYU professor's work.

         1. tripledry · 1789915680 · focus · HN ↗

            Why is this downvoted? Genuine question, I haven't followed up on the drama.

            1. pixl97 · 1789917101 · focus · HN ↗

               Because it's mostly not true. It is likely that it used the professors work, but the professor did not have a solution. It came up with new insights that solved the problem. Even the humans from the professors side said so.

               1. claytongulick · 1789918234 · focus · HN ↗

                  > Because it's mostly not true. It is likely that it used the professors work

                  These two statements appear contradictory.

                  I simply said that it may have trained on a NYU professor's work.

                  Work that the professor did not believe he was releasing for model training purposes. That feels worthy of mention.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.