I believe you are misreading this.

First of all, this is not a sport and the point is not to compare AI to humans. The point is to compare AI to IMO-difficulty problems.

Secondly, this is now some hacky trick where Brute force and some theorem prover magic are massaged to solve a select few problems and then you'll never hear about it again. They are building a general pipeline which turns informal natural lamguage mathematics (of which we have ungodly amounts available) into formalized mathematics, and in addition trains a model to prove such kinds of mathematics. This can also work for theory building. This can become a real mathematical assistant that can help a mathematician test an argument, play with variations of a definition, try 100 combinations of some estimates, apply a classic but lengthy technique etc. etc.

> First of all, this is not a sport and the point is not to compare AI to humans. The point is to compare AI to IMO-difficulty problems.

If this were the case then the headline would be "AI solves 4/6 IMO 2024 problems", it wouldn't be claiming "silver-medal standard". Medals are generally awarded by comparison to other contestants, not to the challenges overcome.

> This can become a real mathematical assistant that can help a mathematician test an argument, play with variations of a definition, try 100 combinations of some estimates, apply a classic but lengthy technique etc. etc.

This is great, and I'm not complaining about what the team is working on, I'm complaining about how it's being sold. Headlines like these from lab press releases will feed the AI hype in counterproductive ways. The NYT literally has a headline right now: "Move Over Mathematicians, Here Comes AlphaProof".

At the IMO "silver medal" afaik is define as some tange of points, which more or less equals some range of problems solved. For me it is fair to say that "silver-medal performance" is IMO langauge for about 4/6 problems solved. And what's the problem if some clickbait websites totally spin the result? They would've done it anyways even with a different title, and I also don't see the harm. Let people be wrong.

No, "silver medal" is defined as a range of points to be earned in the allotted time (4.5 hours for both papers of 3 problems each).

And the cutoffs are chosen after the results are in, not in advance.

> They are building a general pipeline which turns informal natural lamguage mathematics

but this part currently sucks, because they didn't trust it and formalized problems manually.

Yea that's fair, but I don't think it will keep sucking forever as formalization is in principle just a translation process.

and we don't have 100% accuracy in translation in ambiguous texts, because system often need some domain knowledge, context etc. And math has 0% tolerance to mistakes.

I also expect that math formalized by machine will be readable by machine and hardly understandable by humans.

I'm not sure it matters that it had access to a theorem prover. The fact that it's possible to build a black box that solves hard proofs on its own at all is the fascinating bit.

> it still took 8x as long to solve the problems as our best humans did without any computer assistance.

Give it a year and that ratio will be reversed. At least. But also it matters less how long it takes if doubling the number of things reasoning at a best-human level is pronounced "ctrl-c, ctrl-v".

I am so exhausted of the AI hype nonsense. LLMs are not fucking curing cancer. Not now, not in five years, not in a hundred years. That's not what they do.

LLM/ML is fascinating tech that has a lot of legitimate applications, but it is not fucking intelligent, artificial or otherwise, and I am sick to death of people treating it like it is.

What observation, if you saw it, do you think would falsify that hypothesis?

It seems unlikely people will employ only ML models, especially LLM, to achieve great results: they will combine it with human insights (through direction and concrete algorithms).

It's obvious that's happening with LLMs even today to ensure they don't spew out too much bullshit or harmful content. So let's get to a point where we can trust AI as-is first, and let's talk about what's needed to achieve the next milestone after and if we get there.

And I love asking every new iteration of ChatGPT/Gemini something along the lines of "What day was yesterday if yesterday was a Thursday?" It just makes me giggle.

Thanks for that what day was yesterday prompt. I have ran across these situations before but never quite like that.

What is great about that Thursday prompt is how naked the LLM is to the reality that it knows absolutely nothing in the way we think of "to know". The bubble we are in is just awesome to behold.

Thursday question seems fine for me… but I have different standard questions that do fail, e.g. non-Euclidian triangles:

https://chatgpt.com/share/b657f0cd-34f9-4f5c-8ac9-c3a06c7101...

A significant part of the problem is that a majority of people are unaware of just how simple what they consider "intelligence" really is. You don't need actual intelligence to replace the public-facing social role of a politician, or a talking head, or a reactive-only middle manager. You just need words strung together that fit a problem.

It is not artificial? so it is natural then?