this post was submitted on 19 Jan 2024
70 points (91.7% liked)

Technology

59569 readers
3431 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 25 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)
[–] BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 7 points 10 months ago (2 children)

I mean geometry/trig have some of the simplest, most-straightforward, least ambiguous rulesets of any math. Why wouldn't a computer outperform a human?

[–] hikaru755@feddit.de 6 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

From the article:

For many years, we’ve had software that can generate lists of valid conclusions that can be drawn from a set of starting assumptions. Simple geometry problems can be solved by “brute force”: mechanically listing every possible fact that can be inferred from the given assumption, then listing every possible inference from those facts, and so on until you reach the desired conclusion.

But this kind of brute-force search isn’t feasible for an IMO-level geometry problem because the search space is too large. Not only do harder problems require longer proofs, but sophisticated proofs often require the introduction of new elements to the initial figure—as with point D in the above proof. Once you allow for these kinds of “auxiliary points,” the space of possible proofs explodes and brute-force methods become impractical.

So, mathematicians must develop an intuition about which proof steps will likely lead to a successful result. DeepMind’s breakthrough was to use a language model to provide the same kind of intuitive guidance to an automated search process.

[–] kogasa@programming.dev 4 points 10 months ago

Geometry is a bit tricky. A lot of "obvious" facts about geometry are less obvious to prove from a given collection of axioms forming a model of geometry, because their "obviousness" stems from our natural facilities for understanding space and position. Sometimes, historically, things that are "obviously" true in geometry turn out to be false, or depend on unwritten assumptions, for complex reasons. It may be surprising in this light if current AI can beat humans' intuition plus logic using purely analytic tools.

[–] RmDebArc_5@lemmy.ml 5 points 10 months ago (2 children)
[–] LWD@lemm.ee 3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)
[–] wikibot@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago

Here's the summary for the wikipedia article you mentioned in your comment:

AlphaGo is a computer program that plays the board game Go. It was developed by the London-based DeepMind Technologies, an acquired subsidiary of Google (now Alphabet Inc. ). Subsequent versions of AlphaGo became increasingly powerful, including a version that competed under the name Master. After retiring from competitive play, AlphaGo Master was succeeded by an even more powerful version known as AlphaGo Zero, which was completely self-taught without learning from human games.

^to^ ^opt^ ^out^^,^ ^pm^ ^me^ ^'optout'.^ ^article^ ^|^ ^about^