While the result is impressive, this blog post is extremely disappointing.
- It does not show an example of the new best solution, nor explain why they couldn't show an example (e.g. if the proof was not constructive)
- It does not even explain the previous best solution. The diagram of the rescaled unit grid doesn't indicate what the "points" are beyond the normal non-scaled unit grid. I have no idea what to take away from it.
- It's description of the new proof just cites some terms of art with no effort made to actually explain the result.
If this post were not on the OpenAI blog, I would assume it was slop. I understand advanced pure mathematics is complicated, but it is entirely possible to explain complicated topics to non-experts.
apparently the proof is not constructive in the sense of not giving an easy to compute recipe for generating a set of points that you can plot on a 2d plane
Indeed, it's a pity. While many advanced math problems are highly abstract or convoluted to explain to a layman audience, this one in particular is about points in a 2D plane and distances. A drawing would have been nice.
The Internet in 1999 was not good at all. Browsers barely worked, computers crashed constantly, the ability to actually search for useful things was limited, and many things we take for granted as being online (news, people, documentation) were not.
The mid-to-late 2000s are perhaps closer to what the author is looking for.
They worked pretty well actually, AFAICR. Internationalation was a bit sketchy in some cases though.
> computers crashed constantly
You did need to be careful with Windows 98, for sure, but it wasn't that bad. Also, if you put in some elbow grease you could install Linux, which didn't crash (but had limited support for peripherals and for the latest graphics cards, and almost no games).
> the ability to actually search for useful things was limited
It is arguably more limited now than it was then, since commercial search engines did not manipulate the results as much.
Except for the part where it's constantly having quality and reliability issues, even independent of the server-side infrastructure (OOMs on long running tasks, etc).
For someone to come in and buy Bluesky and then hold everyone’s data hostage, then Bluesky would actually have to have enough value that someone would want to buy it.
- It does not show an example of the new best solution, nor explain why they couldn't show an example (e.g. if the proof was not constructive)
- It does not even explain the previous best solution. The diagram of the rescaled unit grid doesn't indicate what the "points" are beyond the normal non-scaled unit grid. I have no idea what to take away from it.
- It's description of the new proof just cites some terms of art with no effort made to actually explain the result.
If this post were not on the OpenAI blog, I would assume it was slop. I understand advanced pure mathematics is complicated, but it is entirely possible to explain complicated topics to non-experts.
reply