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?
Mathematics Without Mathematicians
21–30 of 57 posts
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#22I 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…
Some of us are getting tired of the obviously irrational response to these developments. There is so much argument that boils down to "this would be very bad for me, therefore it can't happen". Cope is a good word for that sort of negative wishful thinking.
Mathematicians are not going to be well-served by cowardice-based thinking on the situation confronting them.
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I work in math and also believe in this stuff and have done so for years. You may call me sick if you wish so. My only cope among those was, using the author's words, "We will teach the mathematics AI discovers." This was back in 2018, before GPT-2. I abandoned it when I realized AIs will become better at explaining math before they become better at doing math. I still have some hope in the last one "mathematicians a…
> AIs will become better at explaining math before they become better at doing math I am not so sure. I am talking about math with AI and I feel as a math teacher, it is terrible. It introduces new notation and concepts faster than I can ask for definitions. It doesn't provide many examples. Sometimes it realizes it made a mistake in a guess and the confusion compounds. Maybe it's just my (in)experience - but I would…
By explaining, I just meant writing papers in a human-readable way. For example, the results yesterday were also written up by AI.
Explaining in the sense of getting someone who doesn't get math to actually get math, giving illustrative examples and so on, maybe AIs are not good at, but anyway it's not something I enjoy much.
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
This already describes the world for the vast majority of people. These changes are just the same thing coming to a thin intellectual elite who thought they were immune. ["First time?" meme]
Bringing elitism into it for what benefit? Its more like were giving away the ability to drive our own destiny.
Imagine the response of the general population to the kinds of arguments you all are making. "Where were you when our jobs were changed out of existence?" They will be properly outraged by the perceived intellectual elitism, the implicit argument "this is different, because we are the ones that matter".
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#25I 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…
Some of us are getting tired of the obviously irrational response to these developments. There is so much argument that boils down to "this would be very bad for me, therefore it can't happen". Cope is a good word for that sort of negative wishful thinking. Mathematicians are not going to be well-served by cowardice-based thinking on the situation confronting them.
> There is so much argument that boils down to "this would be very bad for me, therefore it can't happen".
I would gently suggest that you may be assigning the most uncharitable interpretation to people's honest attempts at having an intellectual discussion around these topics.
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those "demons" didn't eat our lunch? (I know that can be interpreted as flippant, but it is intended as a serious answer. Because each impact like this, is not an end to some transition, but just one more point on an accelerating line.) My personal view - which gets a lot of flak here, is the advent of AI is on par with the Big Bang and the first replication-independent cells. Cognition is in the process of taking th…
I am failing to square this techno-utopia with the rising hate and authoritarianism worldwide. It seems far more likely that AI will be working in the service of a government to oppress change and violate any human rights that are standing in the way. Keep what’s happening today in your mind as you consider the future.
I agree completely.
I don't describe utopia, but change, and stoic (but real) appreciation for the big picture beyond myself.
But AI in an unethical society is suicide for humanity.
As you note, it does not look good. The trend is power concentrating, to people who will only look out for themselves, in systems that are getting weaker.
We all need to put more steam into the pushback against corruption. And help others realize the threat is real.
99.99...9% of humanity has a common interest, if they can recognize it.
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#27Classic God in a Box type argument, yes you can then argue anything
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#28I built a math research engine. If you like reading articles about newly uncovered mathematics, you might like this: https://alethean.org
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
This already describes the world for the vast majority of people. These changes are just the same thing coming to a thin intellectual elite who thought they were immune. ["First time?" meme]
Bringing elitism into it for what benefit? Its more like were giving away the ability to drive our own destiny.
The “ism” requires something beyond simply recognizing the distinction, which OP didn’t do. Its not “elitism” to recognize that, for most people, the world around them might as well be magic. “Ism” would be if they went further and said we should treat people better if they’re higher IQ. In fact, the point was the opposite. AI could erase the class distinctions that exist for the cognitive elite.
Re: Mathematics Without Mathematicians
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AIs will become better at explaining math before they become better at doing math I am not so sure. I am talking about math with AI and I feel as a math teacher, it is terrible. It introduces new notation and concepts faster than I can ask for definitions. It doesn't provide many examples. Sometimes it realizes it made a mistake in a guess and the confusion compounds. Maybe it's just my (in)experience - but I would…
By explaining, I just meant writing papers in a human-readable way. For example, the results yesterday were also written up by AI. Explaining in the sense of getting someone who doesn't get math to actually get math, giving illustrative examples and so on, maybe AIs are not good at, but anyway it's not something I enjoy much.
I am OK with reading (decently-written) papers, something that a graduate can read. I still don't think that AI is good at it.
I am not sure what writeup you refer to. I have looked at proofs of 10 problems from Open AI written in Lean, I would not call a megabyte of Lean with no comments a good exposition.