Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Black_RL t1_iw945lg wrote

META doing good stuff!

42

PrivateLudo t1_iw959lr wrote

Wait dumb question. Is Meta AI Mark Zukerberg’s META or its different

9

ZoomedAndDoomed t1_iw9rgdp wrote

Didn't this happen just a week ago? Or is this new?

6

ZoomedAndDoomed t1_iw9s4ph wrote

Gpt-3 summary

1.The breakthrough in this article is the development of a neural theorem prover that can solve 10 International Math Olympiad (IMO) problems, 5x more than any previous artificial intelligence AI system. 2. This is significant because it shows that artificial intelligence can be used to formalize and measure mathematical reasoning, which is a difficult task for even the most sophisticated AI systems. 3. This breakthrough works by using a reinforcement learning strategy to teach the prover to generalize from a dataset of correct mathematical proofs to completely novel challenges. 4. The article discusses the development of a neural theorem prover that can solve 10 International Math Olympiad (IMO) problems, 5x more than any previous artificial intelligence AI system. The prover works by using a reinforcement learning strategy to teach it to generalize from a dataset of correct mathematical proofs to completely novel challenges.

29

PrivateLudo t1_iwaj88c wrote

Yeah honestly people are clowning on meta but i think in 5-10 years shit can really take off.

It was just a terrible idea to release a metaverse and do a whole PR campaign this early. He should’ve kept his mouth shut and go full R&D into it like what apple is (allegedly) doing.

9

s1syphean t1_iwaskvp wrote

You’re right that Meta is doing ‘good stuff’ here, but absolutely wrong that benevolence and malevolence is subjective.

Please don’t drink the rick and morty koolaid

7

s1syphean t1_iwayyba wrote

If I could explain all of ethics to you in a Reddit comment, I wouldn’t be me, tired and in bed about to sleep before a long work week :)

The best I can do for you now is to assure you that there is a wide realm of inquiry that basically says: “well, it’s not subjective for the same reason that 2 + 3 = 5 is not subjective”

0

MarromBrown t1_iwbukv1 wrote

Well even that truth is relative. Humble yourself and understand that you’ll never have the definitive truth above others. To use conjecture and philosophy to justify actual facts is very dangerous.

True, AI is neither good nor evil (no such thing exists), but it’s a tool in the hands of a company who has shown to act against the interests of the people. That is concerning, and to give in because “the universe is so absurd so this is probably meant to happen” is defeatist and childish.

1

MarromBrown t1_iwbv8vi wrote

Again, defeatist. Just because you’re an asshole and have given up doesn’t mean everyone is. Don’t throw your bullshit onto everyone else. It’s fine to be an asshole but there’s people out there using their limited time on earth to do good.

Don’t take your life philosophy from rick and morty, my guy. Check out some actual philosophers instead. Sweeping generalizations are false intellectualism.

2

Shelfrock77 OP t1_iwbvn63 wrote

You and I are coping bro, we are all the same. I’m not accepting defeat, i’m accepting the neutral ying yang universal truths; and “falses”. Don’t be arrogant and act like what you see benevolent is universal to everybody in every multiverse.

1

MarromBrown t1_iwbw1bu wrote

It’s not, that’s not what i’m saying. I’m just saying you choose to give up in the face of the absurdity of it all while there’s people fighting in spite of it. Be an asshole all you want but don’t drag us into this. Go read some Camus man, sounds like you need it. Highly recommend Myth of Sisyphus.

I believe in something and I fight for it. It doesn’t matter that it’s absurd

1

visarga t1_iwdt41n wrote

Sometimes people say "Language models are like parrots. They learn patterns, but could never do something novel or surpass their training data."

This is proof that it is possible. What you need is to learn from validation. This process can be applied to math and code because complex solutions might have trivial validations.

When you don't have a symbolic way to validate the solution, you can ensemble a bunch of solutions and choose the one who appears most frequently.

2

Brangible t1_iwgi57i wrote

So a centralized service owned by Meta?

1