this post was submitted on 02 Aug 2026
13 points (62.3% liked)
Technology
87214 readers
3506 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Holy shit. If an AI actually solves a Millennium Prize Problems we're seriously entering superintelligence (but not AGI) territory.
In any case this should disprove the "AI is just a statistically typing monkey" theorem some AI skeptics are fond of.
Just to be clear.
But yeah, if that happens, it will certainly be a major milestone.
Ok, not sure I understand "AI is just a statistically typing monkey"? As far as I know AI simplified is just predicting what is statistically the most likely next word or is that wrong? I mean sure the way it predicts is complicated and word vectors are fascinating etc but highly simplified its a statistically typing monkey?
It's a "category error" like saying hydrodynamics are just quantum mechanics. It does not describe the complex emergent behavior and doesn't really tell you anything. Or it's like saying psychology is how the neurons and synapses connect with each and exchange signals and that is all - this would not explain the mental processes between a marmot and a human. So it's not an accurate simplified description, just a description of the basic building blocks.
Afaik nobody knows how LLMs actually think, we only know sort of how to train them. They are researching how LLMs think with an equivalent to MRI brain scanning: Vista do LLM-MRI Python module: a brain scanner for LLMs
The current examples of AI could never be described as a general intelligence let alone Superintelligence. These LLMs are definitely just a typing monkey (that was eloquently put).
They are literally generating text word by word with a next-word-prediction methodology.
With some tweaking they can be made to produce mostly coherent code and apparently also equations that balance. This does not make these algorithms geniuses. A calculator can also balance an equation, so that alone is not impressive.
The techniques LLM designers use to leverage statistical models in order to generate coherent sentences are actually rather impressive. It is legitimately quite a feat to make LLMs work as well as they do. But that does not mean that these outputs are anything like "thinking", they're just outputs. Data goes in, the machine churns, does some mystery math, and different data comes out.
These systems are not worth anthropomorphizing.
Depends how you define superintelligence, what I meant is a more specialized superintelligence than AGI. We already seen that with Go and Chess. But if AI overtakes humans in mathematics it takes on a different quality. But we will see. I doubt it stops here.
Yeah, the sauce is in the mystery math. See my other reply. You're making a category error.
My understanding was that any hitherto success of LLMs in mathematics was in its trying approaches and information from different fields where they weren't traditionally applied (within mathematics), they have surfaced potential links but haven't created anything in any real sense. Still, a potential legitimate use for them that I personally hadn't anticipated.
I mean that math is so far beyond me I have no clue if or how the proofs would "create anything" or lead to anything useful. I'm sure they do, besides adding a little bit to our civilization's knowledge.
I do suspect that LLMs think very "broadly" with a very broad knowledge but can't really reason very deep without training for a special problem. So rapidly trying different approaches does sound like how they do it. So maybe it is a little bit similar to a typing monkey except that it apparently did these proofs with a relatively limited budget.
Nothing can disprove that to that crowd, I’m afraid.
They think the problem is AI, when it's actually capitalism and securities fraud.
It's much simpler to fixate on the technology than to have to understand complex things like economics and history.