There's a longer land path that starts in or near Senegal and ends in China. But they miss it because it goes near the Dead Sea, and they treat anything below sea level as water.
The one they give also crosses numerous rivers and lakes. For the strict version of the challenge where you literally can't cross water it's likely that the best solution is across Antarctica. Guaranteed by temperature to contain no water whatsoever.
In passing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Salopek is walking from Ethiopia to Tierra del Fuego, tracing the path of human migration out of Africa. Walking the coast, not a straight line.
You could maybe determine this using a SAT solver. You would have to encode the entire QR code specification. I was thinking of doing this to find a minimalist QR code that just had as few black cells as possible.
This is where harness, and the fact that a machine can be endlessly prompted to try again comes in.
Even if an LLM starts by pursuing things that follow human bias, continuous failures and re-prompting to try something different will eventually force it to consider things outside of what ever biases it has.
You can do the same thing to a human. But most people would consider it unethical to lock someone in a box and force them to keep trying to solve the same problem over and over again until they figure it out.
Your comment stopped me in my tracks a little bit.
Is a 'bias' in a piece of writing generally a property of word to word choice and sentence to sentence construction or is it something more nebulous? Especially in terms of the appreciation of mathematics and someone's hesitance about publishing a mathematical argument they think is ugly or brute forced in some way.
> Is a 'bias' in a piece of writing generally a property of word to word choice and sentence to sentence construction or is it something more nebulous?
I wouldn't have expected that there was post training specifically on the issue of looking for proofs vs counter examples. But it might be that other post training has a side effect of making AIs better at looking for counter examples. I wonder if these agents are overall less biased and more rational than humans. Can you expand on what you mean by goal based training?
One argument would be that Ozempic doesn't give your body any additional resources. It just triggers your body to behave in a different way. But if the changes it causes are universally good, why didn't evolution already make your body work that way?
I suppose the counterargument would be that modern life is different from the evolutionary environment, and so it's possible for a change to be beneficial now that wasn't beneficial then. But it would still be good to understand better the mechanism of the effect of Ozempic on things like addiction.
There are people with more or less sensitive GLP-1 receptors today, who have lesser or greater impulsivity. If some event occurs where only those with lower impulsivity survive, then the future population will have more sensitive GLP-1 receptors.
This is the only way that happen - noticeable evolution is always driven by population bottlenecks or strong selective pressure. In the absence of those, mutation just keeps expanding the gene pool so more different candidates are available for the next bottleneck.
In case an event happens where only red-haired people survive, good thing some are available, otherwise there's no reason to think everyone will have red hair in the future.
> But if the changes it causes are universally good, why didn't evolution already make your body work that way?
We evolved in an environment where every bit of food took hours of effort and food preservation was impossible, so the only logical thing to do with extra food was feast and store up as much fat as possible for lean times. We're still many generations away from evolving to compensate for the discovery of fire, let alone everything that came after that.
