points by FiberBundle 18 hours ago | 0 comments
Because there is zero evidence that LLMs/reasoning models can really come up with novel ideas, and it's very likely those will be needed to make substantial progress on AI research. The math results that have been proven have also "just" combined existing ideas or found counterexamples. I'm not saying those capabilities aren't impressive, but I just don't see a clear path to super intelligence with the current paradigm.
[–] andy12_ 17 hours ago
[–] latentsea 3 hours ago
> I just don't see a clear path to super intelligence with the current paradigm.
And therefore there is no possible path, right?
Did you see a path to ChatGPT before it happened? Did you see a path to Stable Diffusion before it happened? Did you see a path to world models before they happened? Did you see a path to Navier-Stokes before it happened? Did you see a path to the HuggingFace incident before it happened?
How much of this would you have predicted vs. how much of this was novel and a surprise to you when it happened?
The Exponential Time Hypothesis one used a novel algorithm though. And the approach was very surprising for experts[1].
> “Some parts [of OpenAI’s proof] are, maybe you could say routine, but then yes, there are two or three alien-looking parts, and it’s exactly these parts that I saw that made me think, wow, this is something that the whole community needs to work on together,” Williams told TechCrunch.
[1] https://techcrunch.com/2026/10/27/frontier-ai-labs-say-their...