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 an hour 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.

	▲	WarmWash 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		No one has any obligation to ever look at anything OAI publishes. Ironically though, what I imagine will happen, is that the researchers will pay OAI to use chatGPT to help eval the proofs.

▲

_aavaa_ an hour 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 an hour 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?

▲

PunchTornado 32 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

yes, but in this case, openai does a lot of PR how their models solve important math problems. if it goes unchallenged, parts of society would think that is true. what would happen if we scale it and 10k companies dump 10k papers every month claiming solved math problems. how is this scalable?

We need the companies to humanly review their papers. in the same way as at other companies we use humans to review the papers.

▲

ndriscoll 26 minutes ago | parent [-]

Well, per another comment in the thread, some 20% of their solutions come with formalization, so there's a very high chance (probably higher than typical asks of research mathematics) that they did solve the problem. And that also presents a pretty easy solution to the scaling issue: demand formal proofs.

(If you're going to object that it's difficult to validate the statement of the problem, please first state your level of experience doing so. It's getting tiring seeing people raise this objection and claim that a statement is just as hard as a proof over and over who don't seem to actually know any math and have never tried to write anything in Lean)

	▲	_aavaa_ 22 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Formalization only helps you if you prove that the formalization is correctly implemented, that the model didn’t subtly mess up or cheat. Someone still has to read the formalization.

▲

cowpig an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> It's a symbiotic relationship

That's right, and the difference is that this one is parasitic.

▲

ndriscoll 42 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.

	▲	fwip 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		That's just money flowing into OpenAI, from the people who used to pay mathematicians.

▲

ziiinq an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]

▲

rfgplk an hour 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.

	▲	latexr 9 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> Anyone with access to a sufficiently advanced model has the capabilities of analyzing these papers/proofs. No, no they don’t. What they have is the ability to ask something else to do the analysis. It’s an important distinction. If the asker has the skills to evaluate the results, that’s one thing, but too many don’t and act as if whatever they got is unambiguous truth. > This hardcore gatekeeping of math (and by extension STEM) fields MUST stop. What must stop is the overuse of the word “gatekeeping”. Anyone is free to study these fields and work on problems. What people rightfully object to is uninformed research flooding everything with hard to verify junk.
	▲	ndriscoll an hour ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		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. Like I was reading some about adele rings last night, which is already going to be quite a concept for a layman to be able to even slightly describe. Then you can layer on that apparently they're locally compact, so we can talk about harmonic analysis on the additive group. Like, come on now, 99.99% of people have no hope of ever following along, and this is stuff from 75 years ago.
	▲	ziiinq 31 minutes ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]