How was that not the case? As far as I understand it ChatGPT was instrumental to solving a problem. Even if it did not entirely solve it by itself, the combination with other tools such as Lean is still very impressive, no?
My understanding is there's been around 10 erdos problems solved by GPT by now. Most of them have been found to be either in literature or a very similar problem was solved in literature. But one or two solutions are quite novel.
I am not aware of any unsolved Erdos problem that was solved via an LLM. I am aware of LLMs contributing to variations on known proofs of previously solved Erdos problems. But the issue with having an LLM combine existing solutions or modify existing published solutions is that the previous solutions are in the training data of the LLM, and in general there are many options to make variations on known proofs. Most proofs go through many iterations and simplifications over time, most of which are not sufficiently novel to even warrant publication. The proof you read in a textbook is likely a highly revised and simplified proof of what was first published.
If I'm wrong, please let me know which previously unsolved problem was solved, I would be genuinely curious to see an example of that.
"We tentatively believe Aletheia’s solution to Erdős-1051 represents an early example of an AI system autonomously resolving a slightly non-trivial open Erdős problem of somewhat broader (mild) mathematical interest, for which there exists past literature on closely-related problems [KN16], but none fully resolves Erdős-1051. Moreover, it does not appear to us that Aletheia’s solution is directly inspired by any previous human argument (unlike in
many previously discussed cases), but it does appear to involve a classical idea of moving to the series tail and applying Mahler’s criterion. The solution to Erdős-1051 was generalized further, in a collaborative effort by Aletheia together with human mathematicians and Gemini Deep Think, to produce the research paper [BKK+26]."
"The erdosproblems website shows 851 was proved in 1934." I disagree with this characterization of the Erdos problem. The statement proven in 1934 was weaker. As evidence for this, you can see that Erdos posed this problem after 1934.
You recommended I look at the erdosproblems website.
But evidence that it was posed after 1934 is not really evidence it was not solved, because one of the things we learned from LLMs was that many of these problems were already solved in the literature, or are relatively straightforward applications of known, yet obscure, results. Particularly in the world of Erdos problems, the majority of which can be described as "off the beaten path" and are basically musings in papers that Erdos was asking -- many of these are in fact solved in more obscure articles and no one made the connection until LLMs allowed us to do systematic literature searches. This was the primary source of "solutions" of these problems by LLMs in the cited paper.
The Erdos Problem site also does not say it was solved in 1934. If you read the full sentence there, it refers to a different statement proven which is related.
Yeah that was also my take-away when I was following the developments on it. But then again I don't follow it very closely so _maybe_ some novel solutions are discovered. But given how LLMs work, I'm skeptical about that.
I honestly don't see the point of the red data points. By now all the erdos problems have been attempted by AIs--so every unsolved one can be a red data point.
While this advice may work for some, I would like to point out that this person is making very popular art. This type of art is most likely easier to sell than what most contemporary artists produce.
Also, this remark is giving away a fairly limited view on art appreciation:
> While you can learn from failures, only sales strengthen the muscle because only they show that someone actually cares about what you are making
This is obviously not the case for art projects that target only a few people, or art practices that do not result in tangible objects. (Although there are some exceptions, such as Marina Abramovich, but those are very limited.)
Great for them, but this is not about all art. It just is impossible to live of most art forms. This type of art fits well with our economy, and therefore makes a living. That fit is more important than all the business advice put on top.
The article does point out exactly this problem, but glosses over the fact that most artists don't want to change to popular art. Only a few can, and most don't want to.
On the other end of the spectrum, "experimental artist" (whatever that is) Lawrence English wrote "A Young Person's Guide to Hustling (in Music and the Arts", which seems more like what you're after.
> The article does point out exactly this problem, but glosses over the fact that most artists don't want to change to popular art. Only a few can, and most don't want to.
I don't think author hides the fact. It's plain as day that to make a living, you need to sell art which resonates with people. You can still find room to be creative within that constraint, but you can't ignore the audience.
Artists should quit the illusion that they can create whatever they please and expect the income to automatically follow.
I didn't understand GP's point at all because I think the author makes this exceedingly clear: if you want to paint only for you, and only stuff that appeals to you and a limited few, that's totally fine (and I think the author really emphasizes that's totally fine), just don't expect to make a living off of it.
I thought this article was excellent. In particular, I liked the emphasis that you really just have to produce lots and lots of art to find "image market fit", because it's nearly impossible to know what will resonate with people before you create it. There is just an undeniably huge amount of luck in finding something a lot of people like, so it's important to give yourself as many swings at bat as possible.
But that isn’t really true, per se. It depends on your definition of “people” – the mass market? High end collectors and galleries like Gagosian? Very different audiences, and appealing to one is probably the opposite of the other.
Encyclopedia Brittanica defines "popular art" as art that resonates with ordinary people in modern urban society. I'm sure we could point to examples of people earning a living at non popular art.
> Most people who enjoy making art should not try to make it their full time job. When you turn an avocation (hobby) into a vocation (job) you have to do new things you do not enjoy. Emails, events, meetings, accounting, and more. These are not only a drag but can actually strip the joy from the rest of your art practice.
You'll have to do things you do not enjoy if you want to treat it as a business, including changing your artistic vision if needed etc.
> Art is absolutely an expression of yourself. But your art is not you.
A pragmatic approach could be to work on commericially-proven styles for money and your own style just for yourself (and potentially others if you make a branding that's famous enough).
At the end, yeah, it's a job if you want to make a living with art. There will always be market forces and to extract value from that, you need to understand and conform with it. But that's only if you see yourself as a business and not purely as an "artist" which I think is what you're reffering to when you say "most artists don't want to change to popular art" etc.
Also I don't think it's true overall. Like you say the "person is making very popular art" and that's why they're successful but there's many like them who are also making popular art but are not successful at all. It's also the process they follow and how they approach their business that sets them apart. That part is valuable info/guidance for any artist that does want to be commercially succesful imo.
You said it yourself: he was primarily a professor, not an artist. His position being a "luxury" is another argument. Anyway, He taught languages to brilliant students and created a highly respected translation of Beowulf. LoTR, Silmarillion, Hobbit, and all of it, were his hobby, a secondary but burning passion.
I'm sure many on this forum have secondary passions, be it music, visual art, writing, or anything else. Yet most of us realized we need to make money, and that those pursuits can be done at a fairly high level in our leisure time.
As a resident of SF I've only ever heard of fnnch in the context of people hating his art (I still don't understand why). Is it a case of any publicity being good publicity?
He is objectively a very popular artist - as he mentions in the article he has made > $1million/yr at least one year (and I imagine more often that once). I do own one of his honey bears and I remember in the online "drop", based a price of $500/bear, he made ~$300k in that single drop which sold out in approximately 20 minutes.
I think the people you hear expressing dislike is probably due to his popularity and how often you see the honey bears around SF. He's also a Stanford economics grad, and some people in SF really dislike the stereotypical Stanford alums who think they're superior beings.
I searched for some pictures. The first couple I came across looked like the result of a prompt to an AI: "generate images of plastic honey bears with various outfits and/or accessories":
Yeah I mean, they are cute little graphics and a fun character/brand, but I don’t exactly see how people consider this some masterful piece of artwork. I don’t live in SF, but I can imagine it gets old to see it everywhere.
The idea that someone is a snob because they dislike generic looking artworks is a hilarious indicator of how far aesthetic discussion and standards have fallen. The word used to mean someone that looks down upon the popular arts in favor of more traditional/expensive/sophisticated art.
Now apparently it means having any standards or metrics of evaluation, period. Either you think everything is equal aesthetically, or you’re a snob.
Thankfully this kind of empty opinion isn’t convincing many people these days.
I’m not “shaming someone’s work,” I said 1) they look like generic graphics, and 2) I primarily said someone isn’t a snob for disliking them, which is what the OP comment claimed.
Even then, analyzing a piece of art work is called art criticism. It’s not exactly a new thing, nor is it some kind of personal attack.
But as I said above, the quality of aesthetic discussion has fallen so much that expressing any critical opinion, no matter how minor, is some kind of shaming attack that indicates I have a personal problem or I’m a snob. Which is a totally insane way to view the world.
Snobbery is a spectrum. You might not perceive your words as snobbery, but I do. We just have a different opinion of where you fall on that snobbery line.
>One of the biggest mistakes I see artists make is painting things that don't resonate with people. Once you have an aesthetic that works, the market rewards you for exploring adjacent aesthetic territory. You might not make a living right away — it took me over two years from when I painted that first Honey Bear until I took my art full time — but it is totally necessary if you are to make a living off your own art (as opposed to teaching or commercial art). Until then, if what you're doing isn't resonating, you just need to just paint something else. Experiment with different concepts and directions until you find something that works.
He doesn't spend a whole lot of time deliberating on the literature versus television question, but it's easy to see what he's chosen.
Sure, you are right. For the article author's market, many are literally and metaphorically pedestrian, popular and colorful but uncomplicated.
I read a quotation recently that said in essence, the work of creativity moves from creating something no one else has ever seen or thought of, towards creating new and different insight into something almost everyone already knows about.
great point but I think that even people who create "difficult" art can derive some sort of income from it. in fact, the solopreneurs section points to an opportunity for AI to be a helpful co-pilot on each of those mundane and dreaded tasks listed there. In additional fact, I asked Gemini Pro a while a go to spell out the steps to a successful fine arts career and the output was very similar to this blog's so square-one/concept validation, decision making (eg. given this list of business-relevant events and attendees, which should I prioritize and prepare for) are actions it can take on your behalf or help with.
That said, once a critical number of people start getting the same advice, take the same action then you have another issue to navigate but it would be the same with any tech advancement, eg. the first artists to get their own phone line or a fax machine or a computer ...
> They are all just token generators without any intelligence.
Maybe, but "intelligence" doesn't have a clear, agreed definition. And calling them "just token generators" skips over how complex that generation actually is.
Besides being a bit of a shallow comment, what exactly do you imply here? That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case, it just needs a stronger government than what the US currently has in place. (e.g. progressive taxation and strong antitrust policy seem to work fairly well in Europe).
But with how compounding works, isn't this outcome inevitable in capitalism? If the strong government prevents it then the first step for the rich is to weaken or co-opt the government, and exactly this has been happening.
>That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case,
It doesn't need to imply anything. It's an ideology, those promoting it will say whatever BS attracts people to it. In practice, what is happening in capitalist countries since 1970s (when they abandoned all pretense) is that the rich get way richer and everybody else is fucked.
At the end of the day Capitalism and Communism have nothing to do with authoritarianism and liberalism/democracy. An authoritarian capitalist country is a perfectly valid type of government as there has never existed a 'pure' capitalistic governed country.
Proven outcomes in the real world matter, not hypotheticals in a textbook. Can you provide clear examples of successful communist nations where you would be willing to live and raise children, or is this just pseudo-intellectualism?
All communist nations have implemented the same exact narrow subset of the ideology that we know as Marxism-Leninism.
The reason being that everyone else who tried something more e.g. democratic generally got crushed. So the commies that ended up running countries in the real world were the most ruthless, hyper-violent ones.
Right. To me the conclusion is that communist theory is fatally flawed. Real world application shows that every real, practical communist system will rely on hyper-violence and ruthlessness to preserve itself. Therefore the average person is better off in a capitalist system than a communist one. Can you refute this conclusion?
I don't see how that is a logical conclusion. Again, we're talking about the time when communist parties were literally banned most everywhere, and even talking about that stuff was sufficient to lock people up. Why are you surprised that this process selected for hyper-violence? And why do you project its results to different circumstances?
> That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case,
It is necessarily the case. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of capital, which among other things means that it's possible to accrue it without limit. So the loop whereby the rich accumulate capital, which then allows them to extract even more value produced by workers (i.e. people who actually do useful things with said capital), is an inherent part of capitalism.
You can make it more mellow by heavily taxing the capitalists and using that money to raise the standard of living for everyone else, which is basically what Western social democracy is. But it doesn't eliminate the loop, and thus rich continue getting richer. And more powerful, too, which they use to dial said taxation back eventually.
We have a lot of people, capitalism values them as approaching zero, anything that alters that valuation (without reducing population) is contrary to capitalism. Capitalism means the rich must get richer, they own the resources and means of production, they take the reward.
It comes to a point where they need an underclass to insulate them from the masses; look how cheaply Trump bought his paramilitary though, he only had to spend the money taken from those he's suppressing, didn't even have to reduce his own wealth one bit; the military and his new brown shirts will ensure the rich stay rich and that eventually there is massive starvation (possibly water/fuel poverty first).
Or USA recovers the constitution, recognises climate change and start to do something about it.
It seems like the whole of humanities future hinges on a handful of billionaires megalomania and that riding on the coattails of Trump's need to not face justice for his crimes.
Capitalism just means private citizens can own the means of
production (e.g. start a business, buy stock) and earn a return on investment. It doesn’t mean only the rich must get richer. It means anyone who saves and invests their money instead of spending it gets richer.
However capitalism is perfectly compatible with a progressives taxation system such that the rich get richer at a lesser rate than the poor get richer.
>anyone who saves and invests their money instead of spending it gets richer.
You realise that a large swathe of society earn less than their costs?
Everyone will get richer perpetually, there will never be any impact on climate, we'll never suffer water shortages, we'll all ride unicorns and eat rainbows...
The important thing to note here is people have been propagandized into thinking that capitalist = democratic. In fact the US would gladly punish you with 'un-American activities' investigation if you said anything to the contrary.
The thing is a capitalistic country will gladly turn itself into an authoritarian one if both wealth becomes concentrated and wealth buys votes. With the massive rise in authoritarian activities all over the world, especially in the US our democratic system is at very high risk of collapsing.
Spot on this is what we aimed for. Office tools were meant to be printed to be shared. Or at least exported. When you think of it it’s really bad for information security. On the plus side doing everything in the browser manipulating jsons is you get to do way better real time collab and can include a lot more interactive content.
Even when using google docs, I dropped the paper format, and at that point it's better to edit/read in a richer editor like Confluence which has better support for interactive widgets, expand zones, code blocks, etc. It's also been better at navigating a tree of documents.
Google docs is still great when you need to make something you mean to print, it just tends to not be that often anymore.
I even use markdown shortcuts to format in google docs nowadays.
I'll bite. The benchmark is actually pretty good. It shows in an extremely comprehensible way how far LLMs have come. Someone not in the know has a hard time understanding what 65.4% means on "Terminal-Bench 2.0". Comparing some crappy pelicans on bicycles is a lot easier.
ChatGPT is quite different from GPT. Using GPT directly to have a nice dialogue simply doesn't work for most intents and purposes. Making it usable for a broad audience took quite some effort, including RLHF, which was not a trivial extension.
reply