The headline result was obviously going to happen, not an update for anyone paying attention.
I agree with this comment but am kinda surprised you are the one saying it. I realize this isn’t that strong an argument for “LLMs are actually good” but it happening about-now as opposed to like 6 months later seems like more evidence for them eventually being able to reliably to novel intellectual work.
So, at least for me, this was apparently priced in—worth mentioning since your comment seems to possibly imply I should not have expected this a priori.
(To be fair, it must have been a pretty good deal when I bought, something like 20%)
Well that is a cool thing to have on record. I believe you. :)
At the time did you hold mostly the same “it’s going to hit some kind of creativity / innovation wall eventually” beliefs? (or, however you’d summarize your take, I’m not 100% clear on it)
It’s the type of problem I expected LLMs to be able to solve—challenging proofs wirh routine techniques, probably no novel math concepts invented.
if it’s in the envelope of the achievable with current techniques, the time to get there seems more a function of prioritization and developer skill, and not evidence about the limits of the paradigm.
I guess it is a small update though—these longer proofs may require some agency.
I agree with this comment but am kinda surprised you are the one saying it. I realize this isn’t that strong an argument for “LLMs are actually good” but it happening about-now as opposed to like 6 months later seems like more evidence for them eventually being able to reliably to novel intellectual work.
By the way, I actually bet that the IMO gold would fall in 2025 and made a small (but very high percentage!) profit: https://manifold.markets/Austin/will-an-ai-get-gold-on-any-internat#
#537 among “top traders,” made 106 mana.
So, at least for me, this was apparently priced in—worth mentioning since your comment seems to possibly imply I should not have expected this a priori.
(To be fair, it must have been a pretty good deal when I bought, something like 20%)
Well that is a cool thing to have on record. I believe you. :)
At the time did you hold mostly the same “it’s going to hit some kind of creativity / innovation wall eventually” beliefs? (or, however you’d summarize your take, I’m not 100% clear on it)
It’s the type of problem I expected LLMs to be able to solve—challenging proofs wirh routine techniques, probably no novel math concepts invented.
if it’s in the envelope of the achievable with current techniques, the time to get there seems more a function of prioritization and developer skill, and not evidence about the limits of the paradigm.
I guess it is a small update though—these longer proofs may require some agency.