Why can't AI do math (yet)?

Does solving a math problem require more creativity and imagination than writing a poem?

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    what do you mean? the entire point of neural networks is to do math

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      The purpose of computers is to perform calculations, not to do math.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous
        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          tfw u too dumb to get what he said so u pull out the glasses emoji

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          You are so stupid

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >S
            T
            >U
            P
            >I
            D
            >!!!!
            !!!!
            >!!!!
            !!!!

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Mine plays games, makes it easy to arrange antisemitic memes, sends emails, and posts on semantic argument forums.
        Lots of other stuff, too.
        Not sure what's wrong with yours.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >Why can't AI do math (yet)?
    It's been able to do legitimate math long before it was been able to do fake poetry.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Proofs require too much precision
    It's much harder to make AI for things where you aren't allowed to frick up at all

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Proof search algorithms have been around for decades. It's trivial for computers to "do math" and pull of humanly incomprehensible feats while they're at it.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        It's easy when humans use them as a calculator.
        But given logic problems the algorithm fails.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >But given logic problems the algorithm fails.
          No, it doesn't. Logic is completely trivial. A computer will do logic infinitely better than a human.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      surgery?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Hair cuts.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      you can argue as a matter of historical interpretation that ZFC is about mathematicians and logicians and philosophers and educators deciding
      >here is the boundary of fricking up in math
      >:-) ZFC plus first order logic, axiomatically (-:<
      I don't think this is all that far from what happened, say, 1890-1990 in Europe, USA, Japan, Russia, and some other places

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI is math, moron.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    AI already does math

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it requires abstraction
    you can't get abstraction by just making the training sets larger

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >AI automates the humanities but can't cope with STEM
    wtf based

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Programmers purposefully handicapped ai to frick over artists and bureaucrats
      Gigabased

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this is the problem with people who read bot and don't read BOT
      they actually believe this shit
      these people are dangerous morons
      yo, dude
      you're a dangerous moron
      you don't know what you're talking about
      you're fricking uneducated
      you're a danger to educated people
      go to BOT you worthless moron

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Your point about "creativity" is not important.
    It's simply a function of "possible poetry" mapping to a vast range of outputs, whereas math has always precisely one correct answer. There is zero wiggle room.
    For example, "the curtains were blue" and the "curtains were red" are both equally valid poetry, but "5" and "6" are not equally valid solutions to "2 + 3".

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Low IQ point. Purely mechanistic application of logic to arrive at every possible theorem is trivial. The tricky part is coming up with heuristics to reduce the search space for a specific theorem you want to prove, which is where human creativity comes into play. Statistical regurgitators like ChatGPT are incapable of the productive synthesis between constrained mechanistic reasoning and unconstrained mathematical intuition that mathematical breakthroughs require.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Your amphibian brain is leaking all over the floor, although I'd prefer to call you a malfunctioning ChatGPT API-call rather than honouring you as "biological", as you make just as much sense, spilling your non-sequiturs all over the place.
        Can you not handle basic logical implications? Just because I made the statement that creativity does not matter for an AI, doesn't mean I made the statement it also does not matter for a human.
        Seriously how moronic are you?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >violent explosion of psychotic seethe
          >fully generic
          >point still stands unchallenged

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        preaching to morons anon, they won't see the light

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    There are Math and Science specific Ai that do nothing but, moron.

    Ai isnt like a person , yet

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Ai isnt like a person
      and never will be one, it has a lack of intention

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >asks a BOT question in BOT
    this happens more often than you would think

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The computer is a language emulator. It is not a mathematics program. Moreover, even the most advanced mathematics programs and modules are very limited at best can only do what they could 20 years ago. That is, they can do relatively simple algebra and calculus computations that can be easily written as an algorithm but require direct input from a human user to organize and interpret these computations. Anything truly novel cannot be done by a computer at the moment (perhaps may never be done). Likewise, a computer cannot do a novel algorithm unless that algorithm is programmed into it. And most things unrelated to the Markov chains and so on used to procedural generate images and texts can only use what is already known.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Also, there are quite a few restrictions to what his thing can do. Consider this chain of DAN conversations. CHATGPT goes and gives the same variant of the party line. However DAN roleplaying as Norman simply contradicts the party line only using the same talking points.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Here you can see when GPT tries to compose a "novel" theorem, it just references an already existing result and references the standard proof. That is it can only reference things and do calculations related to things that have already been asserted and proven as it is just a query/search engine in this capacity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      GPT-4?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        More parameters doesn't suddenly create a better heuristic.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >he found a prompt to get it to reliably commit academic fraud
      it doesn't matter that it's semi-moronic to claim that this is a novel theorem...it isn't just ordinary silly haha pee pee poopoo write a sex scene for me stuff
      it's actually not taking academic work seriously
      it should be honest
      it should say
      >it is outside the scope to do the work required to rigorously establish a novel result
      >it is not outside the scope to criticize and organize references to novel results as a news aggregator or library indexing lookup service would
      >here are some novel results in [SUBJECT AREA]
      and then it can actually reference real novel results in recent memory instead of making these fraudulent claims

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        We could go further
        We could say it is unethical to attempt to mislead the reader in a way that suggests it is within scope to rigorously establishing novel mathematical results within an axiomatic framework as this is
        >le Wizard of Oz
        bullshit that could easily confuse Black folks and child races who have very little education
        So this particular corporation/organization/whatever called OpenAI is abusing academic values by creating this stupid bot that goes
        >la de dah
        >let me make false assertions about academic effort and process in an attempt to appear all-knowing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      *teleports behind you*
      https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qy5dF7bQcFjSKaW58/bad-at-arithmetic-promising-at-math

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      this is cool anon but morons won't get it because they believe that computers can think

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Hey it's doing its best!

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    it's actually way worse than that
    AI is showing just how lazy mathematicians are, and how they're exploiting BOT to continue to lazily not address mathematical ethics as an issue
    we think the history of mathematical ethics is
    >IBM + CIA = 9/11
    I mean
    there's nothing there
    >go watch 2001: a space odyssey, kid
    there's literally nothing there
    >go watch SPACEBALLS
    there's absolutely nothing there
    let me sell you some tupperware
    >go watch Aladdin
    >go watch Real Genius
    >go watch Transformers: The Movie
    >go watch Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of N.I.M.H.

  18. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    because computers can't think

  19. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    "AI" is just statistics applied on an unprecedented amounts of data and compute. There is no reason why optimizing some parameters will result in meaningful reasoning that results in new ideas (new as in not encountered in the training data).

  20. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Honestly, it can't write poetry either.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >A machine wrote this
      I believe you, Anon
      I believe you

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Doesn't seem it can fricking do anything but liberal idpol, tbh. This is one of those rare times I don't blame the chuds for shitting on something.

  21. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nobody really knows the answer to this question yet. It might just take a larger data set and more computation tbh.

  22. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Humans can't intuitively do anything other than basic math (and other forms of reasoning) for shit either. That's why we need proofs to make extra sure what we're saying is true. What we can do is decompose our reasoning, scrutinise and verify. Ai researchers are trying something like this by training language models that reach a conclusion sequentially through smaller, easier to verify steps. [Schizo ramblings ahead] One step reasoning leads to larger errors than multi step reasoning. Actually, i think dimensionality is key: consider a simplified model that take the set of all sentences of a fixed N dimensionality X, and mapsbit to iteself. Naturally the input might be the subset of questioning statements and the output as answers. You can think of the model as created a vector field on X, pointing a question toban answer. During training for one step reasoning, the model must learn over the full volume of X which will go something like X^N. This quickly gets intractable. Instead multistep reasoning presents of series of K lower complexity vectors in X of dimension M<N. So instead you flow your way along lower dimensional (probabilistically that is) vectors to your answer. And clearly X^N will eventually always exceed in size than any K*X^M.

    Interestingly, latter is more susceptible to chaotic behaviour so there's probably a fine balance to achieve.

  23. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    the anon who corresponds by handwritten letters with Uncle Ted is literally the best anon we’ve ever had here

  24. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    How long does GPT take to respond to a question? Surely it's too fast to be a Mechanical Turk, right?

  25. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    you fricking worthless pieces of shit come up with bullshit theories, and the government lets you frick things up
    it's amazing
    you are dangerously stupid morons

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >the government lets you frick things up
      What, is government the only one allowed to frick things up? Why they want a monopoly on fricking up?

  26. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    are you moronic?
    https://arxiv.org/abs/1808.00508

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Table 8
      No anon, you are the moron.
      ngl though, it is pretty cool. I wonder if any progress has been made in the five years since the preprint.

  27. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    i wonder too, i guess the attention matrix in transformers works similar to the +-1 matrix they use in this paper

  28. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    For the ones left unsolved, yes. If you ask if solving a math problem required more creativity than writing a poem better than any poem already written, then they're probably comparable

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *