Mathematician Daniel Litt says recent AI-assisted math advances are achievable with existing public models, possibly one generation newer, plus scaffolding and large test-time compute
Gary Marcus questioned Lean neurosymbolic methods versus pure LLMs.
@littmath we have asked @polynoamial but no word yet.
Daniel Litt@littmath@GaryMarcus My understanding is that it was informal reasoning by an LRM. Summarized CoT is publicly available. No sign of Lean etc.
@littmath also they may have used lean etc for (massive?) data augmentation
it’s hard to assess the generality of the advance without any real information on scope, training, architecture etc
the blog itself uses the word “new” with no elaboration
Daniel Litt@littmath@GaryMarcus My understanding is that it was informal reasoning by an LRM. Summarized CoT is publicly available. No sign of Lean etc.
#153Gary Marcus@GARYMARCUSthe crazy part is that people are “clowning” me without knowing anything about the training or whether anything else other than scaled changed or how the model does on anything else. (or what it costs etc)
my claims have always been system level architecture and openai has said practically zilch.
if you are “clowning” me without knowing more the joke is actually on you, because it means you don’t understand the technical issues enough to ask.
#153Gary Marcus@GARYMARCUSwild to see a somewhat disgraced politician comment on the technical side of AI as if he has any idea about the underlying computational questions.
and of course he dwells at the bottom of Paul Graham’s pyramid of argument, with a bunch of emoji rather than any sort substantive argument whatsoever.