Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A misalignment of AI in mathematics

mathandai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 642 posts

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#171

Post by kolinko »

matherial wrote: post #120
yzydserd wrote: post #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.

Yeah. My other favorite example are books. Why do nonfiction books exist? There are some pathologies and corner cases, but fundamentally: to develop and share new ideas. Downstream from that, if it reads well and if you're lucky, you make some money. But now, LLMs can generate hundreds of books per hour. They make up 80-90% of new arrivals in many nonfiction categories on Amazon. They short-circuit the system, allowi…

I would argue that creating an llm book that sells also requires human labour, just a different kind of one.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#172

Post by palmotea »

jameshart wrote: post #135
jeremysalwen wrote: post #20

To me it doesn't seem like what AI has destroyed is the ability for mathematicians to develop understanding and share it with each other, but rather it's destroyed the yardstick (solving open problems) that has traditionally been used to measure how much they have contributed to that understanding. I do see how this is a problem in terms of assigning credit, but I think the cat is already out of the bag in terms of t…

> destroyed the yardstick … that has traditionally been used to measure how much they have contributed This goes much broader than mathematics or academia. This is the entire basis via which society distributes its wealth: based on a labour market derived valuation of ‘contribution’.

> This is the entire basis via which society distributes its wealth: based on a labour market derived valuation of ‘contribution’.

Correction: that's not how society distributes its wealth, it's how it throws some bones to the masses. I wouldn't be surprised if over half the wealth goes to people who don't sell their labor at all.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#173

Post by jrflo »

tmhn2 wrote: post #130
jeremysalwen wrote: post #20

To me it doesn't seem like what AI has destroyed is the ability for mathematicians to develop understanding and share it with each other, but rather it's destroyed the yardstick (solving open problems) that has traditionally been used to measure how much they have contributed to that understanding. I do see how this is a problem in terms of assigning credit, but I think the cat is already out of the bag in terms of t…

The issue of credit is a relatively minor point in the declaration. It's more about bypassing the culture and processes mathematicians have developed that lead to human understanding, generating new ideas, and bringing up new generations of mathematicians. (See also his article about "non-renewable mining" of good problems.) Reducing mathematics to "let's just generate results through an isolated and automated system…

I don't think it really attacks human understanding though. You can still read and understand an AI written proof. If another person comes up with a solution to a problem, you can read their methods and understand it. It doesn't matter if a human came up with that or not. It's really only attacking the "generating new ideas" part.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#174

Post by prometheus1992 »

alansaber wrote: post #57
dwa3592 wrote: post #42

While I agree with this and appreciate Tao and other mathematicians to take the time to do this. There are similar concerns for many many other fields aka there is a general misalignment of technology. Take Software engineering for example, I can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job". Lets forget the hype…

I doubt taxi drivers were forced to experience an ego death to the same extent

>I doubt taxi drivers were forced to experience an ego death to the same extent

How do you know? because their complaints didn't make it to HN front page? Imagine being a taxi driver and a father of 2 and thinking that any day could be the last day at your work.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#176

Post by vatsachak »

sim04ful wrote: post #164

"We are witnessing a general threat to intellectual work, with misalignment between the outcome of the use of AI and its initial purpose" Suppose we eventually have GPT-7-class models running practically on $100 devices, with their activity transparent, inspectable, and reproducible. At that point, what exactly is left for us to fear from this threat?

What's the threat? I would use it to write a dependent type theory that is JIT compiled and use it to rewrite emacs.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#177

Post by johnnyApplePRNG »

ambicapter wrote: post #93
johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #14

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.

What are the token reset shenanigans?

Well, I was happily paying $300 canadian pesos per month to OpenAI for some time... until the tokens just dried up overnight for some reason.

I went from using it non-stop all day every day for months, to running into my weekly limit within 24 hours almost overnight.

They lied about token efficiencies and everything... said they had no idea what the problem was, etc... and then bam, once China starts releasing more powerful models, they start "resetting" our token limits constantly ... sometimes ... maybe ... if we're lucky ...

I am over it.

I don't care WHAT I pay to be perfectly honest. I would have gladly paid $2,000 per month for the service I was receiving.

I just don't like being jerked around like that.

Toodles, OpenAI.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#178

Post by cyclopeanutopia »

Art9681 wrote: post #159

This reads like people lamenting a bygone era and making a desperate attempt to bring it back. I'm sorry. Outside of the good ol' boys club, no one cares about some process they've romanticized simply because "that's how its always been done". Absolute nonsense. We are moving forward and if that means no human wins a fields medal because they didnt spend three decades working on a problem that could be solved in thre…

And who is "we" in your story?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#179

Post by matherial »

david-gpu wrote: post #141

Tao's critique of AI in the field of mathematics reminds me of what French art critic Charles Baudelaire said in the 19th century about photography [0]. Baudelaire argued that photography became a haven for failed painters, the sorts of hacks that could not finish proper training. Photography, as a mechanical rendering of the world, could only record what already existed; it couldn't transform reality the way a paint…

I'm really tired of these arguments (this and "it's just like calculators").

Photography decimated other forms of visual art, so the concern wasn't wrong. But AI threatens the entirety of human intellectual endeavors. I can make do without oil paintings in my home. I'm not sure I want to live in a future where we make do without brains.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#180

Post by Centigonal »

sim04ful wrote: post #164

"We are witnessing a general threat to intellectual work, with misalignment between the outcome of the use of AI and its initial purpose" Suppose we eventually have GPT-7-class models running practically on $100 devices, with their activity transparent, inspectable, and reproducible. At that point, what exactly is left for us to fear from this threat?

I've got to ask, let's say we get a small modular nuclear reactor running practically on a 1 acre lot, its design meltdown proof and waste-free, what then should we fear from this threat ? This is just a thought experiment.

Jokes aside, any productivity-improving technology, even one with no negative externalities, has the potential to cause economic displacement and wealth concentration in proportion to the productivity gains catalyzed. Anthropic did a cool analysis of this for AI here: https://www.anthropic.com/institute/econ-scenarios

Post reply on HN