A misalignment of AI in mathematics
1–10 of 642 posts
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#2[deleted]
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#3Puts the onus on the AI companies to provide a specific replacement mechanism, no? Unless I'm unfamiliar with something else he's written that proposes something more specific and constructive
To Tao’s credit he obviously identified the problem very clearly and admits understandably "we did not have the time to have a more consultative process, as with Leiden; but we decided that the urgency of the situation was such that we needed to release a statement sooner rather than later".
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#4[flagged]
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#5Puts the onus on the AI companies to provide a specific replacement mechanism, no? Unless I'm unfamiliar with something else he's written that proposes something more specific and constructive To Tao’s credit he obviously identified the problem very clearly and admits understandably "we did not have the time to have a more consultative process, as with Leiden; but we decided that the urgency of the situation was such…
> Puts the onus on the AI companies to provide a specific replacement mechanism, no?
Why? If someone makes an innovation that undercuts the underpinnings of some existing institution, why are they are responsible for cleaning up its failure?
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#6> solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight.
This is the effect of AI on most intellectual disciplines, and it’s a real worry.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#7> I am proud to be among the list of 25 initial signatories — all Fields Medallists — to the declaration below
I wonder if there’s a Fields Medalist group chat.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#8> solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. This is the effect of AI on most intellectual disciplines, and it’s a real worry.
Tao basically reiterating "AI is making us dumber" a bit more eloquently and applied to math.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#9Seems more like a misalignment b/w the people practicing mathematics and the people ultimately footing the bill for their work.
Governments are invested in solving mathematical problems for practical purposes. Up to now, achieving these practical purposes relied on mathematicians doing their mathematician thing, which is better defined as a social activity than the achievement of a practical result. Now, governments can achieve similar practical results w/o the need of the social activity.
I don't believe it to be productive to think of the problem wrt AI or AI-company alignment. These conflicts always existed, but they were easy enough to paper over and believe in heavily subsidized fictions that folks in government ever cared about things that mathematicians cared about.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#10Puts the onus on the AI companies to provide a specific replacement mechanism, no? Unless I'm unfamiliar with something else he's written that proposes something more specific and constructive To Tao’s credit he obviously identified the problem very clearly and admits understandably "we did not have the time to have a more consultative process, as with Leiden; but we decided that the urgency of the situation was such…
> Puts the onus on the AI companies to provide a specific replacement mechanism, no? Why? If someone makes an innovation that undercuts the underpinnings of some existing institution, why are they are responsible for cleaning up its failure?
Exactly. Mathematicians are trying to cope that math wasn't slop this whole time.
Grothendieck was anti-slop but most papers are slop.
I don't think AI is going to rewrite bourbaki anytime soon