> This stuff reads as cope by scientists who spent their entire careers chasing these problems. This is their only defense so far: deflecting valid criticism by suggesting, without evidence, that the scientific…
To be honest this doesn't feel as such impressive as the others. It was recently proven in 3 dimensions, so it could be "just" an extension of that. I haven't read the paper anyways so this is pure spectulation.
> but incorrect in macro/long run That you don't know. Nobody knows what AI is going to be capable of in 2 years. It could continue improving, or not. There's no strong evidence in any direction. You're just ignoring…
people here really struggle with metaphors.
> that is most people's experience with LLMs. citation needed. my (university) students don't seem to learn as much as before.
your reasoning is sloppy. so confidently incorrect throughout this thread!
doesn't it use special relativity or some modern physics?
We don't know what models are going to be able to do in 2 years. If they don't improve much but people in charge simply decide to reduce the number of mathematicians, then we'll end up with a dead math community and no…
> All the arguments about the future mathematicians are imagined, and emotional. Even if you don't like, at this moment, AI cannot replace mathematicians.
It doesn't make sense to expect such a positive reaction from the community when OpenAI publishes these papers without proper citations, scoop mathematicians, and copy-paste publicly available preprints. These are…
It seems like you didn't answer the question.
Of course, everyone is curious about these results, we're mathematicians after all. But by incentives I refer to those things that really sustain the system: obtaining permanent positions, grants for future projects,…
> Do you disagree with this? Absolutely. If they cared about properly citing the bibliography, sharing how their models work, etc, it would be so much easier to make an assessment of the situation, of what will be math…
> but also presenting them with "enjoyable proofs". > Or maybe _these_ mathematicians are afraid that _other_ mathematicians will do it. Just elitism and gate keeping. Ok, I don't see the point of discussing with you.…
> The alternative you are proposing implicitly is even crazier. OpenAI should not release a proof that is most likely correct so that it doesn’t burden others. The alternative is that they do the work to properly…
> 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…
> There's a new generation of younger, hungry mathematicians that are highly interested in figuring out why the result is true The problem is that right now mathematicians don't have the economical incentive to read…
These takes forget that OpenAI is doing all this as a PR stunt. They're utilizing the field without worrying about any consequence to it.
You're off by an order of magnitude at least. A mathematician does much more than just prove theorems. Let's start by teaching and administration duties. And then you're off an order of magnitude of the efficacy of…
Most mathematicians don't use gigawatts in a 48 hour window either, so...
How much lean code do you need to read to check if NAvier-Stokes was correctly formalized?
> OpenAI investigated and confirmed that their research was not in the model’s training data. You mean when they say it was impossible to confirm anything but one day after it was 100% confirmed that there was no theft?…
matmul <= 2.25 is no big surprise tbh. unique games and mul < n log n are much bigger.
> they intend to be scientific infrastructure. beyond naive.
which you an run IF you have the hardware. who knows how heavy these models are.
> This stuff reads as cope by scientists who spent their entire careers chasing these problems. This is their only defense so far: deflecting valid criticism by suggesting, without evidence, that the scientific…
To be honest this doesn't feel as such impressive as the others. It was recently proven in 3 dimensions, so it could be "just" an extension of that. I haven't read the paper anyways so this is pure spectulation.
> but incorrect in macro/long run That you don't know. Nobody knows what AI is going to be capable of in 2 years. It could continue improving, or not. There's no strong evidence in any direction. You're just ignoring…
people here really struggle with metaphors.
> that is most people's experience with LLMs. citation needed. my (university) students don't seem to learn as much as before.
your reasoning is sloppy. so confidently incorrect throughout this thread!
doesn't it use special relativity or some modern physics?
We don't know what models are going to be able to do in 2 years. If they don't improve much but people in charge simply decide to reduce the number of mathematicians, then we'll end up with a dead math community and no…
> All the arguments about the future mathematicians are imagined, and emotional. Even if you don't like, at this moment, AI cannot replace mathematicians.
It doesn't make sense to expect such a positive reaction from the community when OpenAI publishes these papers without proper citations, scoop mathematicians, and copy-paste publicly available preprints. These are…
It seems like you didn't answer the question.
Of course, everyone is curious about these results, we're mathematicians after all. But by incentives I refer to those things that really sustain the system: obtaining permanent positions, grants for future projects,…
> Do you disagree with this? Absolutely. If they cared about properly citing the bibliography, sharing how their models work, etc, it would be so much easier to make an assessment of the situation, of what will be math…
> but also presenting them with "enjoyable proofs". > Or maybe _these_ mathematicians are afraid that _other_ mathematicians will do it. Just elitism and gate keeping. Ok, I don't see the point of discussing with you.…
> The alternative you are proposing implicitly is even crazier. OpenAI should not release a proof that is most likely correct so that it doesn’t burden others. The alternative is that they do the work to properly…
> 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…
> There's a new generation of younger, hungry mathematicians that are highly interested in figuring out why the result is true The problem is that right now mathematicians don't have the economical incentive to read…
These takes forget that OpenAI is doing all this as a PR stunt. They're utilizing the field without worrying about any consequence to it.
You're off by an order of magnitude at least. A mathematician does much more than just prove theorems. Let's start by teaching and administration duties. And then you're off an order of magnitude of the efficacy of…
Most mathematicians don't use gigawatts in a 48 hour window either, so...
How much lean code do you need to read to check if NAvier-Stokes was correctly formalized?
> OpenAI investigated and confirmed that their research was not in the model’s training data. You mean when they say it was impossible to confirm anything but one day after it was 100% confirmed that there was no theft?…
matmul <= 2.25 is no big surprise tbh. unique games and mul < n log n are much bigger.
> they intend to be scientific infrastructure. beyond naive.
which you an run IF you have the hardware. who knows how heavy these models are.