logoalt Hacker News

irthomasthomasyesterday at 7:15 PM2 repliesview on HN

Is there a reason they scoped that so narrowly to Buckmaster/codex/2 months

two people worked on this for a year before the breakthrough. Perhaps that earlier work reduced the search space sufficiently to brute force the problem with 10,000 agents?


Replies

HarHarVeryFunnyyesterday at 11:03 PM

Just knowing that there had been progress is enough to have an idea that throwing more compute at it might work (OpenAI had previously tried all the Millennium Prize problems with somewhat limited compute and failed).

It's comparable to Magnus Carlson saying that if he wanted to cheat, all he would need would be for someone to tell him to spend more time thinking about a specific move (just a wink would be enough) as an indication that a computer had found something interesting.

It's as-if after OpenAI first failing on Navier-Stokes (which OpenAI had just tweeted about 2 days earlier!), someone winked at them and said "you might want to try a little harder ...".

falserumyesterday at 9:08 PM

When reading human comments, we should be generous; when we read corporate texts, we may assume paltering.

(TIL: paltering: exact and technically correct statement usage to create misleading impression)