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

891–900 of 908 posts

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#891

Post by dns_snek »

eru wrote: post #822
coderenegade wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the real problem. We're looking at a future where those who control AI have an insurmountable advantage in everything. They can control the amount of intelligence the masses have access to -- for their own safety, of course -- and they will never, ever be able to close the gap.

There's lots of competition in AI. Where do you see the 'insurmountable advantage in everything'?

They said "We're looking at a future". And if that future ends up developing the way these companies want it to then we're looking at extremely dystopian future where AI is essential to all work and people have to buy their "intelligence" from an oligopoly of large providers who have total control over the price and capabilities whilst simultaneously having unfiltered read/write access to people's stream-of-consciousness - their work life, their personal problems, their political opinions. This level of access and power is unprecedented in our society.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#892

Post by TitusCaius »

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?

[dead]

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#893

Post by necklesspen »

zozbot234 wrote: post #856
qlte wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It includes Terrance Tao who has made the front page several dozen times at this point for his usage of AI such as to help the community write proofs for Erdos problems. But to many commentors he's a now gatekeeping AI-hating Luddite clinging to a dying profession out of bitterness and envy because his position is more nuanced than "throw AI at everything and turn off your brain".

Because his letter misuses the word "misalignment" for what's very clearly a capability gap. To anyone familiar with that sort of language, his prose is directly implying that evil superintelligent AIs are deliberately writing obscure proofs in order to harm the community of human mathematicians, which is exactly what the AI-hating Luddite would say! The reality is closer to "current frontier AIs are clueless about w…

LLMs are tools. The responsibility lies in the human(s) using the tool to act accordingly.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#894

Post by jhrmnn »

zozbot234 wrote: post #856
qlte wrote: post #775

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It includes Terrance Tao who has made the front page several dozen times at this point for his usage of AI such as to help the community write proofs for Erdos problems. But to many commentors he's a now gatekeeping AI-hating Luddite clinging to a dying profession out of bitterness and envy because his position is more nuanced than "throw AI at everything and turn off your brain".

Because his letter misuses the word "misalignment" for what's very clearly a capability gap. To anyone familiar with that sort of language, his prose is directly implying that evil superintelligent AIs are deliberately writing obscure proofs in order to harm the community of human mathematicians, which is exactly what the AI-hating Luddite would say! The reality is closer to "current frontier AIs are clueless about w…

It’s actually a fairly precise use of the word, just not in the very specific and narrow sense in which it has been used for AI.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#895

Post by auggierose »

tuncb wrote: post #889

If the methods used for the solution are the valuable part, why can't we dig them out of the ai proof?

The main problem is a social and economic one: while digging, someone needs to pay you, and what incentive does anyone have to do that? Before, you could say, Fermat!, give me a million to formalise it, and share a bit of the glamour. There is no glamour in digging.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#896

Post by caaqil »

NateEag wrote: post #852
caaqil wrote: post #208

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 use…

You would be wise to take the time to understand a perspective other than your own.

That you think I don't understand the other supposed POV is a limitation of your own faculties.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#897

Post by auggierose »

bryan0 wrote: post #136
jonahx wrote: post #37

The concerns seem valid. I'm unclear what the ask is, though. What, even in theory, is a practical and realistic fix?

One proposal that Tao hints at is to not rush to announce solutions. Instead maybe the AI companies should work privately with the subject matter experts on how to communicate the discoveries.

Yeah, that sounds like it is in the interest of everyone. Not.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#898

Post by user43928 »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #829
eru wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Replacing people leaves no room for people.

Out of 3.5 billion employed people globally, only 10% are professionals.

Do you really think making labor obsolete and giving humans back their time is such a bad thing?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#899

Post by encyclopediai »

Mathematics called and says she's fine. She's curious about how is that possible.

Misaligned are the present academic merit system hand in hand with financial interests of academic publishing industry.

The system will be exploited and there will be an inflation of problem solving articles produced with AI. Nobodies will be more productive than 10 Fields medal recipients, each year.

So of course that the ones at the top of this system are scared.

This is a social problem of the present system, not a problem of mathematics.

Mathematicians will do mathematics and politicians will do politics, what's new?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#900

Post by AdamN »

GMoromisato wrote: post #641
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 think there's a difference between "photography will change art--we need to be ready" and "photography will change art, therefore stop photography." There is no doubt that AI has changed the practice of mathematics, just as it has changed the practice of software engineering (and will soon change almost every intellectual job). Trying to deal with change by saying, "please stop the change" is foolish, IMHO. Mathema…

> I think there's a difference between "photography will change art--we need to be ready" and "photography will change art, therefore stop photography."

That wasn't the critique. The statements then were that photographs weren't actually art at all. They were the results of specialists with skills but not 'art'. Yet the photograph as a product was displacing real art in the marketplace.

Post reply on HN