Remix.run Logo
▲ pelican0 7 hours ago

I think it can both true that 1) OpenAI is being inconsiderate/harmful/<pick-whatever-adjective> with their math releases, and 2) there is now a treasure trove of mathematical results ready for the taking.

Yes, the situation sucks overall and mathematics as a whole is in a turbulent time now.

But it also sucks when mathematicians, who are considered experts on a particular problem, refuse to engage with breakthrough results about that problem. #2 above is still true regardless of where it came from or how hard it can be to absorb.

While reading "The Mathocalypse" post [0] by Scott Aaronson, Scott described his wife Dana's reaction to one of the newly solved results in her primary domain of expertise, on which she'd been working for decades.

After her initial shock, and annoyance with the format/style, she decided to start using Astra - for the first time - to help her understand the new result. And he reported in the comments that she had made a lot of progress understanding it in one day, and may be even excited to give a talk about it!

That seems like a much healthier attitude towards these new results.

Yes, everything else sucks about this messy period. But there are still diamonds (in the rough) in this drop that perhaps should be looked into. If the author is too busy, perhaps one of their students can take a look? Someone will, eventually.

[0] https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=10169

▲pks016 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> But it also sucks when mathematicians, who are considered experts on a particular problem, refuse to engage with breakthrough results about that problem.

It might be a shock for you but they are very few in numbers. Most of researchers I know are always busy with something. They cannot just drop other responsibilities for something like this. They will take their own time getting through the proofs (if they want to).

> That seems like a much healthier attitude towards these new results.

Another thing to consider is not all mathematicians are from US or with good funding. The PI or graduate students cannot afford to pay 200/month.

▲oliculipolicula 6 hours ago | parent [-]

I think the role of specific _human_ mathematicians at OpenAI should not be understated.

TFA was about a niche topic that OpenAI doesn't have in-house expertise in.

Otoh Aaronson is the co-author on Lijie Chen's (reasoning lead at OAI) top cited paper. OAI have deployed their resources more effectively against UGC that some of their staff are already familiar with

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=T_OhvOsAAAAJ

https://finance.biggo.com/news/B0eMxZsBy4YEFZDUVPWh

▲pks016 6 hours ago | parent [-]

That's true. OpenAI has some of the best talents. In my experience, domain experts get the most benefits from the models. They can work much faster, catch false positives, and stir the model in right direction.

I wish they take a bit of more time to communicate the findings effectively.

▲steinwinde 42 minutes ago | parent [-]

> I wish they take a bit of more time

There are good reasons not to delay publishing at all:

> They should release all their results immediately. (Imagine working on one of the problems they already solved.)

This is the most popular answer to a question regarding AI advisory group and immediate access on a popular website for professional mathematicians: https://mathoverflow.net/a/515442/473286

The whole debate regarding the behaviour of OpenAI is a red herring. Mathematics need to redefine their profession and how they work (like us software developers too). There are very good reasons to believe mathematics has an important role to play. If they could just stop talking about OpenAI and get back to work - they are very much needed, in particular now!

▲turzmo 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Paraphrasing Hardy, 'exposition is for second-rate minds'.

I don't believe this myself. But I do believe that if you've formed your very ideas about what is good and desirable on the basis of a culture that has held certain values dear for hundreds of years, and have fought against every doubt and difficulty in life for decades to mold yourself into that image, that it does not 'suck' that you are unable to adapt to a new reality overnight.

Very few people that would love to be craftsmen would love to be factory foremen. It is far too insensitive to the human experience to expect people to just deal.

▲gorgolo an hour ago | parent [-]

> Paraphrasing Hardy, 'exposition is for second-rate minds'.

Forgive me if I have no sympathy for current mathematicians who think this way. It's a pretty ugly kind of arrogance.

Some people told themselves they were the pinnacle, the first-rate mind, as opposed to all the second-rater. Well guess what, now your first-rate mind is a commodity and exposition is more valuable. They'd better learn to live with it.

▲mistercheph 41 minutes ago | parent [-]

It turns out your an expendable commodity, and my computer system is predicting that society will profit from your annihilation, really sorry about that and I hope there's no hard feelings.

▲robotpepi an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> But it also sucks when mathematicians, who are considered experts on a particular problem, refuse to engage with breakthrough results about that problem.

For me the problem is that rigth now the structure of incentives that has been built (e.g. you publish more = you get a grant; good exposition < solving a conjecture) is now broken. So, for instance, you would be very irresponsible if you throw your student into one of those AI papers, it's too much the risk. This part is mathematician's responsability, they need to change this incentives structure.

In any case, OpenAI is being a dickhead here. They throw millions of dollars at these problems, but they can't afford basic literature reviews (the drafts barely cite previous work)? Or checking that Lean's formalizations really correspond to what they claim to prove (even for Navier-Stokes they made this mistake)? It's obvious that for them this is just a PR stunt.

▲fithisux 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you can't fight them, join them.

▲runarberg 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why are you two-siding this. There is only one misaligned agent here and that is the company OpenAI. What OpenAI is doing sucks, and people are calling OpenAI out for sucking. However mathematicians (the main victims of OpenAI’s lousy behavior) behave is not the issue here.

If some mathematicians complain about OpenAI sucking, that is fine actually, and if others are more “mature” about it, that that is fine too. Neither of these reactions should be at put as an equivalence to the blame OpenAI deserves for this stunt.

▲babelfish 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

doing math is not "misaligned"

▲mistercheph 40 minutes ago | parent [-]

write down "LLM's will cure cancer" on sticky note, put it on your desk and recite that every day, a hundred times and in the bathroom if you have to

▲ 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲ 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]