At first I thought this was going to be more Luddite babble, but it makes a good point. OpenAI isn't contributing if they are make unreadable papers. They should use a little more of their compute to nail interpretability. The difficulty will only get worse as AI plow deeper into the frontier and produce increasingly alien looking output. I suspect it's a workflow issue. If not, it's a bad oversight if the current generation of models are capable of making mathematical breakthroughs but can't explain how they build on existing frameworks.

▲

nba456_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you don't think they have contributed anything then you can safely ignore them.

	▲	fn-mote 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly what the author is doing. Work this abstract almost certainly has no value outside the community that is (was) interested in the result. OpenAI should engage with the community to realize the value (beyond PR).

▲

simianwords 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Is it just me or is this line of thinking fundamentally dishonest? It may be true that the papers are hard to read but the papers have extremely high signal towards the proof.

All of these comments seem to suggest that if papers are not 100% abiding by readable books their standards, they are basically the same as literal noise. This is highly dishonest.

I’m just a dude and even I’m able to understand the paper after using ChatGPT to help me through it.

▲

calf 2 hours ago | parent [-]

There's certainly a conceit in saying if the math is not accessible to my community then it doesn't even count as math, and the last few days this has been a common ideological talking point.

	▲	simianwords an hour ago \| parent [-]
		That’s right and readability argument is a distraction https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50016860