The experience seemed roughly on par with trying to advise a mediocre, but not completely incompetent, graduate student. However, this was an improvement over previous models, whose capability was closer to an actually incompetent graduate student. It may only take one or two further iterations of improved capability (and integration with other tools, such as computer algebra packages and proof assistants) until the level of “competent graduate student” is reached, at which point I could see this tool being of significant use in research level tasks.
I genuinely hate this statement. A competent grad student can solve problems. GPT cannot solve anything, as all it does is put together the shit it stole from somewhere before
O1 is (apparently) different according to some videos I watched, as it pulls apart the question and does some reasoning steps.
The people who believe in “AI” say the wackiest things.
Its what chaptgpt calls it.
LLMs are basically just good pattern matchers. But just like how A* search can find a better path than a human can by breaking the problem down into simple steps, so too can an LLM make progress on an unsolved problem if it’s used properly and combined with a formal reasoning engine.
I’m going to be real with you: the big insight behind almost all new mathematical ideas is based on the math that came before. Nothing is truly original the way AI detractors seem to believe.
By “does some reasoning steps,” OpenAI presumably are just invoking the LLM iteratively so that it can review its own output before providing a final answer. It’s not a new idea.
Aren’t the grad students similarly trained on books that other people wrote?
Didn’t you steal great students before from somewhere?
Isn’t problem solving mostly put things together of what you’ve learned before?