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

201–210 of 636 posts

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#201

Post by omnicognate »

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 statement is not about AI but about the behaviour of AI companies. OpenAI have put vast resource into solving open maths problems: many millions of dollars of compute just on the Navier-Stokes result, plus whatever they spent on the broader Millenium Prize problems initiative and the other results they have published. Anthropic are doing the same. The statement is asking them to stop doing this.

AI companies are investing these resources primarily as a marketing exercise. There is no near term commercial value to a 100 page Lean proof of blow up in an extreme special case of Navier Stokes, besides the bragging rights. As the statement says any commercial value in this stuff comes a very long time later after new insights and techniques have been digested, integrated into the mathematical canon, expressed in ways that don't take a lifetime of study to understand, etc. (things that AI is not yet capable of doing itself). The bragging rights, on the other hand, are massively valuable. There is a mystique to maths that makes "our AI solved a Millenium Prize problem" an irresistable headline for a company like OpenAI.

What the mathematicians are saying is stop pouring resources that most mathematicians can only dream of accessing into projects that are actively damaging to their field. They face a massive challenge of figuring out how maths can evolve in the face of this new technology, and this is not helping.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#202

Post by aaroninsf »

Castle dwellers dismayed at moat-crossing technology.

What's most important about this is that it's a case study of what happens when deeply evolved ecosystems are blown up by disruptive technology. The psychological and social and professional impacts and myriad and traumatic to be on the receiving end.

Mathematics is merely one of the first domains disrupted. It will be unique only for being among the first... absent disruption of the entire civilizational project as a result of the disruption being caused.

Woe for us that we try to navigate this degree of change at a moment when the very worst and ignorant and short sighted hold all the power, economic and political.

Woe.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#205

Post by keybored »

tossandthrow wrote: post #11
pfdietz wrote: post #5

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?

Yes it seems odd. Out sourcing construction jobs was great for the economy while leaving entire cities in rubbles. But as soon as it hits the privileged class there is a call to "provide a specific replacement mechanism".

Whose privilege are you sticking up for here in effect?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#206

Post by throwaway1921 »

piloto_ciego wrote: post #60
kenjackson wrote: post #36

"how to make sure that, as AI changes the way work is done, we do not lose sight of what that work was meant to achieve in the first place." That sounds like an "us problem", not an AI or OpenAI/Anthropic problem.

That's how I read it too, Terry Tao, who has been a "pro-AI math guy" is going through the same emotions and confusion that us SWE folks are going through, "oh, wait... this might mean I'm not going to be special anymore!?" I don't mean to be a dick, but I've talked about it previously. These folks are grieving. I get it, I've lived through this sort of life changing thing before, it sucks... but yeah.

I think this is ridiculously flippant. If software engineering and the hardest math is solved, that means that eventually a majority of professions and knowledge work is solved. This is hugely problematic because of the way our society currently functions. People need jobs to eat, pay for housing, etc.

Dismissing it as "innovations have happened before" is disingenuous. Yes, innovations have happened, but none of those threatened to automate all human work in existence.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#207

Post by azan_ »

12qqtt wrote: post #192
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…

No, there are no parallels. It is just cliche propaganda used by AI boosters.

Wait, what? Who’s the ai booster in this scenario?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#208

Post by caaqil »

The mathematicians would be wise to re-read The Bitter Lesson, maybe twice a day, until it sinks in. No offense and with all due respect to the Ivory Tower Giants but the whole "oh no you ruined the game because you solved it, I was supposed to play with that in child-like wonder manner and take several years to do so, and by then I would have showed you all the trickery I did to get there and maybe that will be useful to you" over the past 2 weeks is, get this, cope.

Chess. Go. Coding. Now Math. Another one bites the dust. Let's meditate on this lest we forget: Stochastic parrots that generate the next-token cannot reason or produce anything meaningful. Let's protect our jobs at all costs, even if we have to drag all of humanity down. It can't be! Stochastic parrots can not replace the Ivory Tower. No way.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#209

Post by tonfa »

pfdietz wrote: post #102
dullcrisp wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re not asking them to stop working on AI, but to stop publishing mathematics.

In other news, evangelical christians ask scientists to stop publishing about evolution. We apparently have a moral obligation to protect existing power structures? Tao should maybe consider there are people who are indifferent to, or actively want to tear down, his institutions; why should they cooperate in preserving them? Whatever happens has to be resilient in the face of defection; any scheme where everyone is e…

> In other news, evangelical christians ask scientists to stop publishing about evolution.

not sure it's comparable, but the issue is that for a lot of those mathematical results, they don't really have utility by themselves. The utility is the new branches/understanding that's being developped.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#210

Post by pred_ »

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…

Are you aware that Tao is among the largest proponents of using AI in mathematics? The usage itself is not the point here.
Post reply on HN