* Rudolf Adamkovič <rud...@adamkovic.org> [2025-05-15 00:15]: > Rudolf Adamkovič <rud...@adamkovic.org> writes: > > > I cannot help, as I have no idea what "truly innovative" means. > > Maybe this will satisfy your definition of "truly innovative"?
The thread was about the LLM not able to invent something new. It wasn't about people (Google team) inventing something to call that LLM invented something. It wasn't about multiple LLMs put together until the human finds the best answer. So you deviate from the original thread and anthropomorphize software programs to be "intelligent", while they are not. Since the inception of computers on this planet there were programs which could resolve various problems and mazes. That is why computer is there. All that is solved by programmer who gives heavy computing tasks to computer. What human programmer has created is innovation. Result of the computing cannot be said to be "innovation". > "Furthermore, AlphaEvolve discovered novel, provably correct algorithms > that surpass state-of-the-art solutions on a spectrum of problems in > mathematics and computer science [...] Notably, AlphaEvolve developed a > search algorithm that found a procedure to multiply two 4 × 4 > complex-valued matrices using 48 scalar multiplications; offering the > first improvement, after 56 years, over Strassen’s algorithm in this > setting." It did not discover anything. Anthropomorphism by Google team doesn't make it smarter than my wooden desk here. It is very obvious from the same article that team has found way how to combine usage of multiple LLMs to get best working results by evaluating the code. Programmers who made that concept are innovators. Not the LLM. -- Jean Louis --- via emacs-tangents mailing list (https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-tangents)
