„Im Grunde Null, Müll“: Der renommierte Mathematiker Joel David Hamkins erklärt KI-Modelle für die Lösung von Mathematik für nutzlos. Hier erfahren Sie, warum
https://m.economictimes.com/news/new-updates/basically-zero-garbage-renowned-mathematician-joel-david-hamkins-declares-ai-models-useless-for-solving-math-heres-why/articleshow/126365871.cms
33 Kommentare
Holy cow. A next word predicting machine can’t do simple math.
Frankly I am shocked.
Edit: This is a Joke. JOKE.
The article is self repeating every two sentences reading this felt like having a stroke
There’s a reason LLMs generate code in order to do math based on data.
Wait I thought it can solve the world math olympiad better than almost any human alive.
Strong claim, but it feels a bit overstated. Current LLMs are bad at deep, novel mathematical reasoning especially proofs, but they’re quite useful for intuition building, checking steps, exploring examples and catching errors. They’re tools, not mathematicians and like calculators at first their value depends on how they’re used.
For now maybe, but AI will soon likely be outperforming humans in reasoning and thinking skills. But unfortunately, this will happen not by AI becoming significantly smarter or more powerful, but just relatively as humans becoming more and more stupid due to a whole generation of society developing cognitive atrophy as a result of outsourcing all their high level thinking and reasoning skills to AI.
I tested Claude and Deepseek with some composite integrals to solve and the results were actually correct and very well explained. So as a noob like myself who vaguely remembers some first year of university maths, they are not useless at all !
That article was written by AI.
This article is dogshit, it’s a single paragraph about some random fuckass without even evidence he said what it claims or why he thinks that way.
a decade ago i posed a problem i know the solution to math graduate students and they couldn’t figure out. i did the same to chatgpt and it gave authoritative confident bullshit answer. it never said i have no idea. as i keep saying its answers wrong it admits them and then tries to come up more bs. llm will never solve real math problems. it might do baby math problems but real science never.
„Here’s why“ is the most redundant suffix to anything ever. Christ I hate it.
LLMs are language models, not maths models. They know that if some word ‚X‘ appears then a certain percentage of time it will be followed by word ‚Y‘. They’re probabilistic models that are based on the idea that if certain text appears often then its probably right.
I cant think of a worse basis for forming mathematical proofs.
I came across a great quote that I think perfectly sums up LLMs or „AI“ as we’re calling it. An unstructured query language over a lossy database of the web. And hallucinations are just compression artifacts like a blurry JPG.
Paints a good picture for what they can be useful for, and also what they’re not really able to do. And I think it’s pretty consistent with how these models work.
Shout out to Wolfram Alpha for helping me with my differential equations studies 14 years ago.
There’s some quote about the past being unable to provide innovative. I unfortunately can’t recall it.
They also suck at electronic circuit logic.
Math exposes AI’s biggest weakness: sounding right isn’t the same as being right.
Google Gemini AI just got IMO gold btw
https://deepmind.google/blog/advanced-version-of-gemini-with-deep-think-officially-achieves-gold-medal-standard-at-the-international-mathematical-olympiad/
This article is propaganda
News flash AI isn’t perfect. Just like any technology in its infancy.
(03:35:28) If you want to know where Joel David Hamkins start talking about AI in the Lex Fridman Podcast #488. https://lexfridman.com/joel-david-hamkins-transcript
Example of why more context is needed:
(03:36:58) “But okay, one has to overlook these kinds of flaws. And so I tend to be a skeptic about the current value of the current AI systems as far as mathematical reasoning is concerned. It seems not reliable. But I know for a fact that there are several prominent mathematicians who I have enormous respect for who are saying that they are using it in a way— …that’s helpful, and I’m often very surprised to hear that based on my own experience, which is quite the opposite. Maybe my process isn’t any good, although I use it for other things like programming or image generation and so on. It’s amazingly powerful and helpful.”
Has anyone ever claimed this variant of LLM was good at math? You don’t need to declare something no one was claiming. They don’t understand symbolic logic. They are incapable of doing math. They can learn answers but they cannot do math. And that is fine, they don’t need to be able to. They just need to know how to use a calculator and that they can do.
that site should be banned from this forum and you u/stickbond009 should be ashamed for posting it
„One of the world’s biggest mathematicians“ da fuq? is he 500 pounds or something?
So is the AI that wrote this crappy article:
> “If I were having such an experience with a person, I would simply refuse to talk to that person again,” Hamkins said, noting that the AI’s behaviour resembles unproductive human interactions he would actively avoid. He believes when it comes to genuine mathematical reasoning, today’s AI systems remain unreliable.
> „The frustrating thing is when you have to argue about whether or not the argument that they gave you is right. And you point out exactly the error,” Hamkins said, describing exchanges where he identifies specific flaws in the AI’s reasoning. The AI’s response? “Oh, it’s totally fine.” This pattern of confident incorrectness followed by dismissal of legitimate criticism mirrors a type of human interaction that Hamkins finds untenable: “If I were having such an experience with a person, I would simply refuse to talk to that person again.”
Could we have a few more quote repeats in adjacent paragraphs?
>He also highlighted AI’s frustrating tendency to confidently assert incorrectness and resist correction.
„If I were having such an experience with a person, I would simply refuse to talk to that person again.“
So it’s like working with your stupid cousin BillyBob.
I would expect a „renowned mathematician“ to come up with a proof, not „express strong doubts“
Asking an AI to do math without tools/thinking is like asking someone to tell you the first best guess that comes to mind without doing any work.
Why does anyone think that would work? No one expects humans to do that.
That being said with tool use AI smokes 99% of the population.
Latest ai slop is,
1. Make a statement in the negative
2. Follow up with exactly three short opposing yet symetrical hypothesis used as proof of the positive.
EG:
1: this statement is not negative.
2: it is informative, short, and to the point.
Then repeat this pattern as often as possible. People used to do this because they think it is impactful, but honestly. It is repetitive and annoying AS FUCK. I downvote every video I see doing it if you were in my English class, I would fail you back a grade.
AI companies just havent put enough data centers onto the problem. They need to be allowed to blackout cities and seize ALL the potable water. Then they might be able to reliably count the R’s in strawberry.
I once asked Gemini to help me reconcile my budget when I had a discrepancy that I couldn’t figure out. I figured this would be the perfect job for AI and exactly one of the use cases where AI is supposed to make life easier. However, it was immediately confused and wrote a giant novel rambling to itself. Some highlights include „This is not right.“; „This still doesn’t help.“; and „This is getting complicated.“ It finally decided the ’solution‘ was to invent and add a debit of the missing amount, „$150.73 (Not found).“ Thanks, Google.
I had to convince Amazon’s AI three times that the number of days between January 2nd and January 6th was four, not three. It told me it agreed with me that it was three days when I was telling it the correct answer was four.
This is the system coming for our jobs.
Wow, an article criticizing AI that was written by AI. We’ve got to stop calling this AI–there’s nothing intelligent about it.
Wake me when someone fraudulently wins a Fields Medal after using AI to solve an unsolvable problem. Until then, I choose to agree with the mathematician quoted in this article.
Natural Language Models don’t work well for things other than natural language?
I’m shocked.