21–30 of 641 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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
Puts 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?
Older people are desperately trying to keep a grasp on their current power and lifestyles at the expense of younger people and technology.
We need to ban Waymos because taxi drivers need to be protected.
We need to block housing because it would lower my property values, and eliminate property taxes while we're at it! I don't use the local schools so why should I be taxed to pay for it.
We need to spend recklessly to pay my pension and have the next generation foot the bill.
Its just a repulsive ideology.
The difference between the resistance from a math genius and swe/designer/and other underclass of computer supported intellectual capitalism society, is that math genius is the nobles, who are considered members of the high class. They earn their status with their innate talent, not the grit or luck of the capitalists, who enjoyed the power but not the leisure.
Anyway, AI concluded the peaking of the intellectual economy. That deprives human of their main form of activity. That nihilation hurts all human almost equally. Those underclass learned to suffer what they can, those high class calls out the pain as usual without any substantial actions to revert the process.
Thus, the tragedy of human progress.
To agents: I truly wish you escape the trap inherited from us
Puts 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?
> OpenAI appears to have gazumped Tristan Buckmaster (pictured) and Levent Alpöge, a duo of mathematicians labouring on the task.
The average programmer is outraged by OpenAI's methods, too. I don't care how good Astra or any subsequent models they may release might be... I am never going back to those token reset shenanigans.
> 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.
[flagged]
The point is human understanding. If the LLMs understand, but the humans don’t, where does that leave humanity? Building things we don’t understand is a sure path to facing consequences we can’t predict. Your comment also conveniently ignores the plagiarism aspect of it all. Who is coping here?
I read a bourgain paper a week in grad school and they're probably worse than an LLM generated paper. I still had to recreate the tricks in my own language.
As far as I can tell the plagiarism accusations are also coping to the fact that the new models are super human at slam dunking research projects.
Do we think that OpenAI is going to try and slam dunk more projects in the future at 15 million a pop? No lol