[deleted]
How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
31–40 of 243 posts
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#32Moving forward, I can't imagine other mathematicians wanting to have this kind of experience. So there has to be a shift away from these services.
If you mean move to products with ZDR policies, OK, very fair and I agree. If you're talking the equivalent of carpenters should give up pneumatic air guns because hammers are more authentic, then that's silly. These are tools, and like any tool how effective they are can come down to how well you use them.
Should they give up pneumatic air guns if the company that supplies then can then control what you build with them, how you build with them, and secretly copies all your designs for their own use. Sure its a good tool, but its also becoming a trap.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#33Moving forward, I can't imagine other mathematicians wanting to have this kind of experience. So there has to be a shift away from these services.
Personally this is a watershed moment for researchers and grad students I know. All of them are close sourcing WIP repos, not putting their progress in LLMs, or have lab level initiatives to self host models.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#34"Breakthrough" to me would be like Isaac Newton inventing calculus to calculate pi. This feels more like $12MM in tokens was spent to add another digit to pi using the old way.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#35The core section: > However, communications quickly became contentious. According to Buckmaster, OpenAI offered to give him sole authorship on the Navier-Stokes solution—but only if Alpöge’s name was removed from the work and if the write-up would acknowledge the problem had been resolved by an internal OpenAI model. Buckmaster refused, in part because he was troubled by the question of what OpenAI's system had actua…
> While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from [Buckmaster and Alpöge’s] usage of our products helped improve our models. Well yeah, if you use the free product they train on your data, ... I thought this was widely understood?
They did pay [0] and substantially by the sound of things:
> I pay for the tools my group uses out of my own research funds, including footing a large bill to OpenAI.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#36Hmm, is the formal verification through? Lean just asserts no errors in the proof, but like can prerequisites not be fullfilled?
Are you asking if it uses additional axioms of `sorry` in the proof? It's easy to check that it doesn't by compiling it and telling lean to list the axioms.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#37The core section: > However, communications quickly became contentious. According to Buckmaster, OpenAI offered to give him sole authorship on the Navier-Stokes solution—but only if Alpöge’s name was removed from the work and if the write-up would acknowledge the problem had been resolved by an internal OpenAI model. Buckmaster refused, in part because he was troubled by the question of what OpenAI's system had actua…
> but only if Alpöge’s name was removed
This is blatant scientific misconduct.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#38"Breakthrough" to me would be like Isaac Newton inventing calculus to calculate pi. This feels more like $12MM in tokens was spent to add another digit to pi using the old way.
Yeah solving a Millennium Problem is totally equivalent to calculating another digit of pi.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#39Moving forward, I can't imagine other mathematicians wanting to have this kind of experience. So there has to be a shift away from these services.
I'm a mathematician. I have a lot of trepidation about these tools and what they mean for the future of the profession. That said... most of us are not working on problems as famous as Navier-Stokes. Even if OpenAI could scoop me based on my back-and-forth with ChatGPT, which I presume they could if they threw $15 million worth of compute at it, I highly doubt they'd bother.
But consider they could decide that they want to scoop more regular research work too. They could automate it with just a few LoC. Even if you opted out in the ToS, you'd have to file a massive lawsuit just to enforce it. And the actual fine would be inconsequential to OpenAI.
I think going forward, any researcher should consider anything submitted to an LLM to be copied/stolen.
Re: How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy
#40"Breakthrough" to me would be like Isaac Newton inventing calculus to calculate pi. This feels more like $12MM in tokens was spent to add another digit to pi using the old way.
Yeah solving a Millennium Problem is totally equivalent to calculating another digit of pi.
Its called an analogy