| ▲ | afavour an hour ago |
| 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” |
|
| ▲ | ndriscoll 37 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| Where are you getting unpaid from? Almost all people who are qualified to analyze the results are paid researchers. And if it is unpaid, then it sounds like they're looking it over for their own reasons, and that's fine? I also fail to see the issue you have with releasing abandoned source. In what world is that bad? That obviously is a gift and should be encouraged. e.g. id software's history of doing that has meant their work stays alive forever. |
| |
| ▲ | afavour 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | Unpaid by OpenAI. In service of their PR goals they’re creating a bunch of work for others and not contributing to compensating that work. | |
| ▲ | _aavaa_ 35 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | OpenAI isn’t paying mathematicians to verify all these papers. It’s dumping the papers trying to nerd snipe them into checking it for free. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 27 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Researchers normally don't pay each other to read each other's work. It's a symbiotic relationship. If they think the AI results are nonsense, they could ignore it like any other crank. If they think it seems plausible and it's relevant to them, they can try to understand it. Seems fine? | | |
| ▲ | cowpig 16 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > It's a symbiotic relationship That's right, and the difference is that this one is parasitic. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 5 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Why's that? Do you think that institutions and funding agencies won't cover researchers' use of advanced models, or what? The group I worked in in undergrad had millions of dollars of equipment for doing experiments. I'd have to imagine they could get funding for a few thousand dollars in tokens for the theoreticians to have AI assistance. |
| |
| ▲ | ziiinq 8 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
| |
| ▲ | rfgplk 23 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Almost all people who are qualified to analyze the results are paid researchers. This _might_ have been true somewhat in the past (although it wasn't), but it's completely false today. Anyone with access to a sufficiently advanced model has the capabilities of analyzing these papers/proofs. It's no different than reading a codebase you might not be fully familiar with, and checking it for correctness (give an engineering analogy). This hardcore gatekeeping of math (and by extension STEM) fields MUST stop. | | |
| ▲ | ndriscoll 16 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I mean, I have a decent math background, but I would struggle greatly to attempt to even tell you what most (or any) of the conjectures in e.g. number theory are about at even the highest level. I can't imagine a layman would have any hope. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | charlieyu1 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I’m unsure. The whole academia is built on unpaid human efforts. Journal writers are unpaid, and institutions paid for their papers to be published by for-profit publishers. Journal reviewers are paid the bare minimum, certainly unproportional to their efforts and expertise. |
| |
|
| ▲ | rubyfan an hour ago | parent | prev [-] |
| We are all reverse centaurs now. |
