| ▲ | OpenAI Withdraws 3 Math Papers(github.com) |
| 61 points by theemathas 4 hours ago | 27 comments |
| |
|
| ▲ | qoez 36 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Without a thriving mathematical community to point out these things it would have stayed broken. With automated math that community as tao pointed out is at risk. |
| |
| ▲ | viraptor 29 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Have you got a link to someone pointing it out? It looks like they're still going through formal proofs so likely found the problems that way. | | |
|
|
| ▲ | chairhairair a minute ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| This company is just irresponsible. We (at least, Americans that vote and can therefore decide indirectly what’s legal) should not allow them to continue. |
| |
|
| ▲ | soltanov an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Proof by authority works until human mathematicians actually run the code. Back to prompt engineering. |
|
| ▲ | hmate9 27 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| 3 mistakes (so far) out of ~400 is still a pretty good hit rate |
| |
| ▲ | afavour 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I’m conflicted. I guess we’ll see what the final total is once an enormous level of unpaid human effort is expended verifying the AI outputs. A little sad if that’s the future of math. It kind of reminds me of when tech giants open source a project as a means of putting a positive spin on abandonware. “Here’s the source! Any problems are yours to fix now. You’re welcome” | |
| ▲ | catlifeonmars 2 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [delayed] | |
| ▲ | watinthedeutsch 5 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I would say not. For a mathematicians, having to retract more than 2 papers in a lifetime is already a big issue in their career. | | |
| ▲ | jacobstokes a minute ago | parent | next [-] | | But is it equivalent to withdrawing post-publication or is it more akin to not passing peer review with major revisions requested? | |
| ▲ | zzzeek a minute ago | parent | prev [-] | | Most mathematicians don't produce 400 papers in a 48 hour window either so I'm not sure comparisons are helpful |
| |
| ▲ | matsemann 25 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | But can the others even be "disproven", given that they apparently are so messy and awful that no humans can follow them? Shouldn't the onus instead be on OpenAI to prove that they're right, instead of hundreds of mathematicians wading through slop? | | | |
| ▲ | malux85 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Exactly, I was glad to see these withdrawals, its a natural part of a healthy ecosystem of scientific review, hypothesis, claim, test, refute, extend, withdraw, its the heart of science. IMO If you take out all the stupid human aspects mostly related to fear, egos, etc, we should brace the imperfect and helpful tools, whatever they are, improve them so they are as easy as possible to review, and keep that core scientific discovery loop going |
|
|
| ▲ | renyicircle 30 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Another discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50002650 |
|
| ▲ | breezybottom an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| So much for the "it's lean verified" defense. |
| |
| ▲ | n2d4 42 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | The withdrawn papers were not lean verified nor claimed to be. | | |
| ▲ | hckrme 35 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | I wonder why the heck were they provided / uploaded then. Perhaps just a fast and loose play-out on their part. What I don't understand is how come engineers / scientists working on these are okay with this kind of attitude. | | | |
| ▲ | breezybottom 24 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | But that's the argument that was used when people here were skeptical about the results. | | |
| |
| ▲ | nkmnz 16 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Can you point to where that defense has been made? |
|
