> The AIs will exceed humans in taste and intuition...
> The AIs will be better teachers than the humans. In any case, there won’t be a human audience for expository work of frontier math.
> No human needs to understand any of it...
Absolute nonsense. I am sorry, but... is it appropriate to not consider the author sick or having some mental disorder?
It seems like the person has no idea what they are talking about, or just too sarcastic to the point of idiotism.
Math might get a lot bigger and then there might be proportionately fewer people but not necessarily in total. Unless humans play no role in economics, business, society, etc., I doubt human intermediation and discovery (or direction of discovery) will go away.
> The result is that we will live in a demon-haunted world, full of marvelous devices whose operation we will not understand, based on engineering principles we will not understand, discovered using formalisms we will not understand.
Well, that's just where we started — and then we developed science and mathematics to understand it. Why would it be any different if the demons live in our technological progeny instead of the natural world?
The pure system of patents and copyright is broken.
Imagine being able to only throwing money and patenting everything, even if it existed before.
The legal behinds this will be so mess that no one will be able to produce anything
I am growing tired of seeing the terms "cope" and "moving the goalposts" in response to discussions around AI. Is there not value in trying to understand what the strengths and weaknesses of the technology are? How can we do that without examining the limitations of the models' current abilities? If we simply dismiss those arguments out of hand as feeble attempts to deny the inevitable rise of superintelligence, then where does that leave us? Shall we all just lay down and start praying to the machine god?
I don't move in these circles but the way I picture it is that higher
mathematics in its purest form has no applications but is rather a
medium of creative expression among a select few. How is AI generating
voluminous opaque proofs of esoteric results so different from
generating millions of hours of music nobody likes or has time to hear
that we think the former is world-changing while the latter is just
slop?
The word “cope” shows up nine times in this short post. It was frankly annoying to the point it’s hard to take the arguments seriously, because it’s starting from an obvious base of “people who disagree are all wrong and their arguments aren’t worth taking seriously”.
It’s akin to the subset of cryptocurrency proponents who fervently argue that people who are against cryptocurrencies have that opinion because they’re jealous they didn’t become rich. It shows a profound lack of understanding—and, more importantly, an unwillingness to understand—the other side of the argument.
This is made evident by the very first “argument” of moving the goal posts. It’s dismissed off-hand, without even explaining what those entail. That’s the same as saying “if a person makes a fallacious argument, they’re wrong and you can ignore them”¹. But crucially, sometimes what we ourselves think is a fallacious argument, isn’t. “Moving the goal posts” is probably the most misused accusation I see in LLM discussions. It’s basically a talking point by now.
"Cope" is just the latest negative word that's used just to say something is bad / disliked. It's greatly overused. If people actually read about coping stategies etc they'd quickly realize that coping is not a negative but a positive mechanism.
Edit: Looking around at context, this has major crank warning signs (claims to also prove the conjecture, author has claimed solutions to both the Riemann Hypothesis and the Navier-Stokes problem and is involved in "alternative propulsion" research). I doubt OpenAI would have published without thorough verification.
15 comments
[ 1.3 ms ] story [ 26.7 ms ] threadIt seems like the person has no idea what they are talking about, or just too sarcastic to the point of idiotism.
Well, that's just where we started — and then we developed science and mathematics to understand it. Why would it be any different if the demons live in our technological progeny instead of the natural world?
Imagine being able to only throwing money and patenting everything, even if it existed before. The legal behinds this will be so mess that no one will be able to produce anything
Perhaps already you are not the intended audience. Slop-raised parrots will lap it up.
It’s akin to the subset of cryptocurrency proponents who fervently argue that people who are against cryptocurrencies have that opinion because they’re jealous they didn’t become rich. It shows a profound lack of understanding—and, more importantly, an unwillingness to understand—the other side of the argument.
This is made evident by the very first “argument” of moving the goal posts. It’s dismissed off-hand, without even explaining what those entail. That’s the same as saying “if a person makes a fallacious argument, they’re wrong and you can ignore them”¹. But crucially, sometimes what we ourselves think is a fallacious argument, isn’t. “Moving the goal posts” is probably the most misused accusation I see in LLM discussions. It’s basically a talking point by now.
¹ Which is itself a fallacy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy
I am hopelessly ill qualified to judge.
Edit: Looking around at context, this has major crank warning signs (claims to also prove the conjecture, author has claimed solutions to both the Riemann Hypothesis and the Navier-Stokes problem and is involved in "alternative propulsion" research). I doubt OpenAI would have published without thorough verification.