261–270 of 369 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't see why that should be a problem, as we already know the answer is 42 in any case.
There is as yet insufficient Data for a meaningful answer. [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0708807
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, and they will. But what's happening here is that the system that cultivates mathematics (and mathematicians) is recieving likely the biggest shock of its history. How do you reward merit and identify talen when people can't absorb the number of proofs being generated, much less understand them? Perleman's proof of the Poincare conjecture took several years for the mathematical community to digest; the proof of N…
Well maybe its time to pivot from mathematics, and science as whole from personal attribution to being about progress of the field? Maybe your contribution to humanity as a mathematician is to find the right meaningful question to ask, and not to stamp your name on some fact?
The situation is not that different from John Henry competing against the machine. The question is really: Do people deserve to be allowed to continue doing what they have always done, when doing it is no longer necessary to advance the greater good?
We're having to rediscover in real time the extremely hard way, why enabling mass theft is so incredibly damaging to society. This is literally why we need a functional copyright system If theft becomes more profitable than genuine creation, then nobody will create anything. Then there's nothing to steal, at which point all progress collapses
What is interesting is that LLM's do not directly violate copyright. The settlements we have seen are for how the works were acquired (that was a copyright violation) not the use of the works.
The vectors of a book, or a paper, are not the paper. They are, for all intents, facts about the work itself, and more generally writing. You can not copyright a fact.
It also means that the weights, the things that (mostly) matter can not be copyrighted either.
I'm with @nilesh on this one, and not exactly sure how merely the existence of a solution precludes the advancement of human knowledge. If a problem is "solved" (say, symbolically verified) without any insights gained, it doesn't seem very interesting to the profession. Navier-Stokes is a bit different (because there's a prize attached, so "scooping" matters), but almost all interesting problems don't have any prizes…
Humanity is very biased for the culmination of work, considering everything that comes before and after busywork for the lower masses. Replicating a paper is just as valuable scientifically as publishing it, but how many careers advance through replication? If we move the goal from "find the solution" to "clear up the LLMs work" that doesn't bode well neither for the attractiveness of the problem nor for the career o…
If you examine the consequences of the inversion of the peak, you realise the need for a balanced perspective.
I didn't realize that open math problems were a finite resource. I recall a story about some famous mathematician (Gauss?) dismissing interest in Fermat's Last Theorem claiming that he could crank out problems of equivalent interest. Clearly Tao knows a hell of a lot more than I do about this, but I'm surprised that math that close to completion.
It's easy to come up with new open problems. It's hard to come up with new open problems that seem to teach us something fundamentally new about the world. Our current batch of problems went through a complex selection process over decades (or centuries) based not purely on difficulty but also on perceived insightfulness. I studied math, but I am not a mathematician, so I think I have a slightly different perspective…
That’s not untrue. But it’s also a misstatement of mathematical history. Many leading mathematicians historically have been highly competitive — Gauss comes to mind. Woe betide the lesser intellect that sent Gauss some ideas. The Newton Leibniz controversy was very serious business at the time in the UK and the continent. It was considered at the least a sin to reveal that sqrt(2) was irrational to those outside Pyth…
I'm with @nilesh on this one, and not exactly sure how merely the existence of a solution precludes the advancement of human knowledge. If a problem is "solved" (say, symbolically verified) without any insights gained, it doesn't seem very interesting to the profession. Navier-Stokes is a bit different (because there's a prize attached, so "scooping" matters), but almost all interesting problems don't have any prizes…
Why was there a prize attached to this problem then? What does humanity get out of this being proved?
Tao's central point seems to be : "In short, the indiscriminate use of powerful solution-extraction tools can achieve the immediate short-term goal of solving problems at hand, but at the cost of sustaining the ecosystem for the next wave of progress, or in understanding the progress already obtained. " I am no mathematician, may have misunderstood his point and would be delighted to receive any corrections.
That’s not untrue. But it’s also a misstatement of mathematical history. Many leading mathematicians historically have been highly competitive — Gauss comes to mind. Woe betide the lesser intellect that sent Gauss some ideas. The Newton Leibniz controversy was very serious business at the time in the UK and the continent. It was considered at the least a sin to reveal that sqrt(2) was irrational to those outside Pyth…
My computer contains the prime factorization of probably several dozen (if not more) large integers, and I refuse to share them with anyone! (Because they are my private RSA keys)