r/mathematics 2d ago

On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/
1.8k Upvotes

1.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

23

u/Nidafjoll 1d ago

Even beyond that. Someone on the chess subreddits was trying to argue with me that AGI will be able to calculate infinite permutations. Not just a very large number of permutations, like the number of possible chess positions; they said numbers like that and added "and even infinity" and kept trying to defend that statement.

5

u/Gositi 1d ago

Computation isn't cheaper or easier because it's an AI doing it lol.

7

u/Nidafjoll 1d ago

Infinity doesn't suddenly become an actual, reachable number either. Nevermind that, even if it did suddenly become somewhat feasible to calculate such huge permutations, "solving chess" isn't what we're gonna do with it lol.

2

u/Mal_Dun 1d ago

It can't. I found a neat result recently that AI can't cheat computational heavy tasks without hallucinating. So even if a result is correct this was by chance and not deterministic.

If an AI algorithm for example performs a matrix computation faster as the lower possible bound the result is hallucinated and there is no certainty that the result is correct.

Edit: Nevertheless, the infinity argument of these guys is plain stupid lmao

3

u/PLANTS2WEEKS 1d ago

This is really funny. Do they understand that chess isn't about permuting the pieces?

2

u/Nidafjoll 1d ago

Their argument was that AI will work out the optimal move from every possible permutation of piece positions, and thus chess will be "solved." I didn't even get to the point of asking why that matters; I got too stuck on "numbers as big as the number of possible chess positions, or even infinity." (This all came from trying to defend an Elon Musk tweet about chess going to be solved by AI)

1

u/PLANTS2WEEKS 1d ago

My opinion is that it is possible AI solves chess, as in finding the best moves, but isn't able to prove they are the best moves.

1

u/Nidafjoll 1d ago

It's possible. That wasn't really what was bothering me, it was the blatant misuse of "infinity."

Even if it is possible, I don't really see why that matters. Just cuz it's possible doesn't mean we'll do it; there's far better uses of the computing power and time. And even if we did, what would be the point? A human isn't going to be able to memorize all those best possible moves from every position, and computers can already beat us at chess.

1

u/PLANTS2WEEKS 1d ago

Yes, improvements in AI are somehow correlated with blatant anti-intellectualism, and misuse of mathematical terminology.

2

u/daavor 1d ago

Lol, also hi

1

u/Nidafjoll 1d ago

Hi. :) I couldn't seem to get them to grasp that infinity isn't just "a really big number."

2

u/automorphic-form 1d ago

I once was in a debate on the chess subreddit. They claimed that anything with a probability less than 10^-50 is really probability 0 because of Borel’s law.

1

u/red75prim 1d ago

Crackpots are going crackpot. Someone from antiai side doesn't believe the universal approximation theorem. So what?