行业动态
newscientist.com ·
@Matthew Sparkes
我用免费AI聊天机器人13分钟解决十年数学难题
记者Matthew Sparkes测试免费聊天机器人,惊讶于其解决一个长期未解数学问题的速度,但具体细节未在摘要中给出。
AI推荐理由 报道记者测试免费AI聊天机器人解决数学难题,但摘要未提供具体模型和问题细节,可信度中等,但话题有趣。
70
正文
你会玩720面的骰子玩大富翁吗?
akinbostanci/Getty Images
上个月,我采访了一些正在寻找一套非常奇特骰子的数学家。他们寻找五个骰子,只是为了解决一个有趣的问题:在棋盘游戏中决定谁先走。关键是,每个骰子必须有相同的获胜几率,且投掷结果绝不能平局。他们的搜索花了十多年,但最终成功了。
我也花了很多时间报道人工智能在解决数学问题方面日益增长的能力,包括本周令人震惊的费马大定理的形式化。当我与骰子猎人们通完电话后,这两个想法开始在我脑海中交织。我想,人工智能能否更进一步,为六名玩家找到解决方案,用六个骰子决定谁先走?
阅读更多
人工智能对87年谜题的解决方案令数学家们惊讶
蛮力不是答案:五个骰子的可能设计比宇宙中的原子还多。所以,我启动了ChatGPT,描述了问题,并请求解决方案。我两次轻推并澄清,总共它“思考”了大约13分钟。然后它给出了答案。
广告
我立即将解决方案发送给阿拉巴马州奥本大学的Eric Harshbarger,他是研究五骰子问题的研究人员之一。“我检查了你的数字,”他说。它们是正确的。
我承认我的解决方案不是特别优雅或美观的。我的五个骰子有720面;另一个有20面。在现实世界中尝试掷一个720面的骰子,或者说服玩家一组不平衡的骰子是公平的。
我的AI衍生解决方案甚至不是我们所知的最好的。Harshbarger和他的同事们告诉我,他们已经能够调整他们的五骰子解决方案,创建一个六骰子解决方案,其中所有骰子都有360面。这还不足以公开宣布,而且仍然不太实用,尽管它无疑比我的好得多。
然而,像我这样的外行,数学充其量是尘封的,仅仅通过用简单的英语向AI模型描述问题,就在几分钟内找到了一个棘手(尽管不严肃)问题的解决方案。数学中某些根本性的东西已经改变,新的模型,如GPT-6,不断涌现,基准分数不断提高。我们生活在有趣的时代。
训练新AI模型的人承认他们只是让聊天机器人来做
下一代AI模型本应由受雇与之对话的人来训练,但其中一些工人向《新科学家》承认,他们只是让聊天机器人来做这件事。专家警告说,这种“AI近亲繁殖”可能会降低未来模型的能力和实用性。
当我传递这个消息时,谷歌的软件工程师、另一位与Harshbarger合作的骰子研究员Paul Meyer想知道AI是否真正得出了解决方案,还是仅仅在互联网的某个偏僻角落找到了它。但搜索没有发现任何痕迹。
Harshbarger、Meyer和我在电话中得出的最佳解释是,五骰子解决方案发布在研究人员用来跟踪工作的网站上,以及他们长期已知的一种方法的描述,该方法可以从较少骰子的解决方案“归纳”出更多骰子的解决方案。也许AI模型找到了这些部分,填补了空白,并做了自己的工作。
“我认为这是一件大事,”Harshbarger说,他声称自己从未有意与任何AI模型互动。“一个非数学人士,至少,如果他们读了这两个部分,可能无法自己做到这一点。我不想说有智能存在,但它可能已经弄明白了什么。这太神奇了——在某些方面有点吓人——但确实神奇。”
Meyer在日常工作中使用AI,他更加乐观。“我个人确实相信那里有一些智能。我几乎总是被它经常能做的事情所印象深刻——惊讶和印象深刻——因为它就在过去一年或六个月里取得了如此大的进步。”
但奇怪的是,我几乎为自己做了这件事而感到尴尬。这不需要我任何技能。我也觉得它在某种程度上削弱了我所报道的人类数学家的工作,我担心这可能是该领域人类投入减少的冰山一角。当一个免费的在线聊天机器人可以逐渐削弱心爱的数学想法时,会发生什么?当未来数学家、物理学家和材料科学家的开创性AI衍生研究论文发表时,他们会这样感觉吗?
免费通讯
注册《每日》
注册通讯
可能不会。“我会很兴奋,”Harshbarger说。“我不在乎解决方案是如何找到的。我当然想知道,如果可能的话,AI是如何做到的。”
但这些模型会进步多少?在过去六个月中,我们在数学能力方面看到了非凡的进步——这是一个平台期还是长期趋势的一部分?
OpenAI的Sébastien Bubeck,正如你可能期望的那样,对AI的未来相当乐观,当我解释我刚刚用他的一个模型做了什么时,他似乎既不惊讶也不印象深刻。
“我的印象是,我们过去六个月看到的进步,我完全期望在未来六个月会看到同样多的进步,”Bubeck说。“我觉得我们真的能够提高我们的雄心,特别是在数学方面,但总的来说在科学方面。”
目前,AI模型在寻找现有问题的反例或解决方案方面表现出色,但尚未展示出创造新概念、想法或数学领域的能力——而戏剧性的进步正是来自那里。
OpenAI宣布解决10个长期存在的数学问题
十个困扰人类数学家多年的难题已被OpenAI的Astra模型破解,延续了AI驱动突破的热潮,正在撼动该领域
“我们还没有能做到这一点的模型。我认为没有人有,但这是一个自然的进化,”Bubeck说。“这会在今年年底或明年发生吗?我不知道,但显然会发生。”
Bubeck承认事情会改变,这可能会引起一些不安。从手动解决一个问题并找到解决方案中获得的乐趣可能成为过去。社区还将不得不应对棘手的问题,比如他们是否可以为AI所做的工作获得荣誉,或者他们是否只是将这些发现引入公共领域的促进者。Bubeck说,人类数学家可能会被原谅一段悲伤期。
与此同时,他享受他的工作,并说在某种意义上,研究新的AI模型就像推开一扇敞开的门。“我花了数年、数十年时间困在数学问题上,很难取得任何进展,”Bubeck说。“AI研究恰恰相反。”
主题:
AI / 数学
数学
费马大定理被AI代理在11天内形式化
新闻
技术
国家和大型科技公司使用乌克兰的“金粉”数据训练AI
新闻
评论
当ChatGPT进入完全地精模式
常客
技术
我们与聊天机器人越来越亲密。一本新书问这意味着什么
文化
还没有能做到这一点的模型。我不认为任何人能做到,但这是一个自然的进化,”Bubeck说。“这会在今年年底或明年发生吗?我不知道,但显然会发生。”
Bubeck承认事情会改变,这可能会引起一些不安。从手动解决一个问题并找到解决方案中获得的乐趣可能成为过去。社区还将不得不应对棘手的问题,比如他们是否可以为AI所做的工作获得荣誉,或者他们是否只是将这些发现引入公共领域的促进者。Bubeck说,人类数学家可能会被原谅一段悲伤期。
与此同时,他享受他的工作,并说在某种意义上,研究新的AI模型就像推开一扇敞开的门。“我花了数年、数十年时间困在数学问题上,很难取得任何进展,”Bubeck说。“AI研究恰恰相反。”
主题:
AI / 数学
数学
费马大定理被AI代理在11天内形式化
新闻
技术
国家和大型科技公司使用乌克兰的“金粉”数据训练AI
新闻
评论
当ChatGPT进入完全地精模式
常客
技术
我们与聊天机器人越来越亲密。一本新书问这意味着什么
文化
查看原文(中文正文为 AI 翻译)
Would you play Monopoly with a 720-sided dice?
akinbostanci/Getty Images
Last month, I interviewed mathematicians who were seeking a very peculiar set of dice. For no reason other than they found the problem fun, they had hunted for five dice that could be thrown to decide who moves first in a board game. Crucially, each dice must have the same odds of winning and throws must never tie. Their search took more than a decade, but they finally cracked it.
I have also spent a lot of time reporting on the growing power of artificial intelligence to solve mathematical problems, including this week’s shock Fermat’s last theorem formalisation. The two ideas began to commingle in my head after I got off the phone with the dice hunters. Could AI, I wondered, go one better and find a solution for six players, with six dice that decide who goes first?
Read more
AI’s solution to 87-year-old riddle takes mathematicians by surprise
Brute force wasn’t the answer: there are more possible designs of five dice than there are atoms in the universe. So, I fired up ChatGPT, described the problem, and asked for a solution. I nudged and clarified twice, and in total it “thought” for around 13 minutes. Then it delivered.
Advertisement
I promptly fired the solution off to Eric Harshbarger at Auburn University, Alabama, one of the researchers working on the five-dice problem. “I checked your numbers,” he says. They were correct.
I accept my solution wasn’t a particularly elegant or aesthetically pleasing one. Five of my dice had 720 sides; another had 20. Try rolling a 720-sided dice in the real world, or convincing players that a lopsided set is fair.
Nor was my AI-derived solution even the best we know of. Harshbarger and his colleagues have already been able to adapt their five-dice solution to create a six-dice one, where all dice have 360 sides, they told me. This isn’t good enough for a public announcement and still isn’t very practical, although it is undeniably much better than mine.
However, a layman like myself, with at best dusty mathematics, found a solution to a thorny, if unserious, problem in minutes by doing nothing more than describing it in plain English to an AI model. Something fundamental in mathematics has shifted and new models, such as GPT-6, are emerging all the time with ever-better benchmark scores. We live in interesting times.
People training new AI models admit they just get chatbots to do it
The next generation of AI models are meant to be trained by people paid to have conversations with them, but several of these workers have admitted to New Scientist that they simply get chatbots to do it instead. This “AI inbreeding” may reduce the power and usefulness of future models, warn experts
When I passed on the news, Paul Meyer, a software engineer at Google and another dice researcher who collaborates with Harshbarger, wondered whether AI had truly arrived at the solution or whether it had simply found it in some obscure part of the internet. But a search revealed no trace.
The best explanation that Harshbarger, Meyer and I came up with on a call is that the five-dice solution is published on the website the researchers use to track their work, as is a description of a method they have long known can “induct” a solution for more dice from one with fewer. Perhaps the AI model found these parts, filled in the gaps and did its own work.
“I think it’s a big deal,” says Harshbarger, who claims he has never knowingly interacted with an AI model in any way. “A non-math person, at least, if they read those two components, might not be able to do [that] on their own. I hate to say there’s intelligence there, but it may have figured something out. It’s amazing – a little scary, in some ways – but it is amazing.”
Meyer, who uses AI during his day job, is even more optimistic. “I do believe there’s some intelligence there, personally. I’m almost constantly impressed – surprised and impressed – by what it can do on a regular basis, because it’s come so far just in this last year, or six months.”
But in a strange sort of way, I am almost embarrassed to have done it. It took no skill on my part. I also feel it somehow undermines the work of the human mathematicians I had reported on and I fear it may be the thin end of the wedge for diminished human input in the field. What happens to pet mathematical ideas when a free online chatbot can chip away at them? Is this how future mathematicians, physicists and materials scientists will feel when their paper on groundbreaking AI-derived research is published?
Free newsletter
Sign up to The Daily
Sign up to newsletter
Possibly not. “I would be thrilled,” says Harshbarger. “I don’t care how a solution is found. I would certainly like to know, if we could, how the AI did it.”
But how much more advanced will these models get? We have seen extraordinary progress in the past six months when it comes to mathematical ability – is this a plateau or part of a long-term trend?
Sébastien Bubeck at OpenAI is, as you might expect, pretty positive about the future of AI and, when I explain what I had just done with one of his models, is seemingly neither surprised nor impressed.
“My impression is that the progress we’ve seen in the last six months, I fully expect we’ll see the same amount of progress in the next six months,” says Bubeck. “I feel we’re really going to be able to raise our ambition, specifically in mathematics, but in science in general.”
Currently, AI models are proving adept at finding counterexamples or solutions to existing problems, but have yet to demonstrate an ability to create new concepts, ideas or fields of mathematics – and that’s where dramatic progress comes from.
OpenAI announces solutions to 10 longstanding maths problems
Ten conundrums that stumped human mathematicians for years have been cracked by OpenAI’s Astra model, continuing a hot streak of AI-driven breakthroughs that are shaking up the field
“We don’t have models that can do that yet. I don’t think anyone has, but it is a natural evolution,” says Bubeck. “Will that happen at the end of this year, or next year? That I don’t know, but it’s clearly going to happen.”
Bubeck concedes things will change and this may cause some upset. The enjoyment derived from manually picking away at a problem and finding a solution may be a thing of the past. The community will also have to grapple with thorny problems like whether or not they can take credit for work AI does, or whether they are just facilitators who usher these findings into the public sphere. Bubeck says human mathematicians may be forgiven for a period of grieving.
In the meantime, he is enjoying his work, and says that in some sense, working on new AI models is like pushing at an open door. “I have spent years, decades, being stuck on math problems where it’s very, very hard to make any progress,” says Bubeck. “AI research is the polar opposite of that.”
Topics:
AI / Maths
Mathematics
Fermat’s last theorem formalised by AI agents in just 11 days
News
Technology
Nations and big tech to train AI using ‘gold dust’ data from Ukraine
News
Comment
When ChatGPT went full goblin mode
Regulars
Technology
We’re getting intimate with chatbots. A new book asks what this means
Culture