Mathematics is not owned by "the mathematics community" and they can't gatekeep who can do math. End of story.
A misalignment of AI in mathematics
941–950 of 1001 posts
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#942Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s frustrating that this comment is at the top because it, along with lots of the replies it inspired, absolutely misrepresents the actual declaration. The declaration is not making any statements about not using any AI in mathematics. The entire point is to push the use of the technology in a direction which is compatible with positive pre-existing features of the math community, and to make it better known what s…
The declaration literally opens by writing that AI companies (or really anybody) saying, “Hey, let’s see if this powerful reasoning engine can solve an open problem in mathematics” is “detrimental” to the “science” of mathematics. Full stop. So I don’t think it’s being misrepresented. If it’s a science, why isn’t progress good in itself? You can’t have it both ways. The online comments I’ve read that side with the le…
Exactly. They can continue doing the sport version, just like sprinting is still there at the Olympics and people admire Usain Bolt or whoever is more recent. But we use cars and trains and planes when we want to get somewhere and don't confuse Bolt's run with transportation. So you can do this kind of recreational intellectually satisfying human math in a similar way, while productive freight-train-like math will be done with AI.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#943Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really hate this overly condescending takes. First of all, what do you know about the internals of math research that allows you to speak with so much confidence. Second, you're not even addressing the issues raised by the letter! This is not about "oh they made a bunch of problems easier". There are huge economical interest behind: who owns and has access to models? are these companies interested in developing res…
>> "are these companies interested in developing research" judging from the money, resources spent and the value they derive from this the answer is very definitively yes. What makes you think these companies (and I'm not a fan of all their motives) are not interested in developing research? The motives may be self-serving, but it is undoubtedly and objectively accelerating research.
> but it is undoubtedly and objectively accelerating research.
Part of the point of the letter is that it is quite possible to act in a way that is a net negative to research. The most obvious case is when the companies violate ethical standards in research.
The subtler case, the one for maths in particular, is what happens when you fail to follow well-established patterns for making maths research productive. Tao himself spelled out how that can look in https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117207856734787448 (which notably came before any of the news on Navier–Stokes).
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#944Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dont confuse mathematics with the formal system. If you beleive mathematics = formal system then AI is obviously better at it, and we dont need humans. But then who decides why a statement is mor important than another? In the eyes of a formal systems all statements are born equal.
I didn't know some statements in math are more important than others?! Some are more useful, and that is something you can quantitatively ask.
How can you quantitatively evaluate that? By how many times it is used in the literature? That can be gamed and there is an inherent bias on that
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#945Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. Forgetting this in the world of AI may turn the tool against the primary goal.
No one is paying mathematicians to develop a conceptual understanding. If the signal for who is “winning” math in academia disappears mathematicians will have a big problem
This is true. There can still be some funding for recreational aesthetic mathematics, like you can get some funding for various art projects or philisophy, literature, poetry, general humanities and community-building projects or sports funding or things like that. But currently many mathematicians are funded by the public purse with the understanding that this contributes to science and engineering and technological development at some point. I'm not saying that intellectual pursuits for the sake of human mental satisfaction is not worth funding in a society. The question is the amount of people needed. Tax payers pay for it. You have to tell them why, and why so many people need to be funded to do that. Many people have various hobbies they enjoy. But generally they don't get government money for doing it as the general rule. Maybe in a post-scarcity world.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#946Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep. Perhaps humanity would be better off if we instituted and enforced the notion of "Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a human mind." It's worth thinking about; just because we can build AI systems doesn't mean we should.
I would remind you that the fictional society that did this was also described as a feudal monarchy in which a tiny class of nobles exploits the economic output of trillions of people reduced to serfs by controlling all means of interstellar trade. Oh, and they also have legal slavery.
I'll remind you that a fictional product that provided longevity and woo woo powers of prescience and was only available on one planet in the entire universe was the key context that enabled such a centralized society. Dropping thinking machines and their masters like a bad habit was only part of the cause, as it eliminated one means of safe interstellar travel in that reality. I can take ideas from this plot without bringing in the whole ridiculous mess if I like, just like I can walk and chew bubble gum at the same time, thank you very much.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#947Earlier quoted context omitted.
The maths community is now in the antithesis phase, synthesis will take a while ;) Lee Sedol said in an interview that "losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing. ... I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired", and I think there will be folks in the mathematical community who would feel the same when the solutions pages to hard problems are suddenly available. But on the other hand, people l…
I really hate this overly condescending takes. First of all, what do you know about the internals of math research that allows you to speak with so much confidence. Second, you're not even addressing the issues raised by the letter! This is not about "oh they made a bunch of problems easier". There are huge economical interest behind: who owns and has access to models? are these companies interested in developing res…
> I really hate this overly condescending takes
Sorry, but this is backwards. Mathematicians are the ones coming to the table asking for money from the taxpayer. This is the context we are speaking in. Mathematicians speaking with the taxpayers who fund them. It's not a great strategy to get offended or speak from a high horse. If the taxpayer is not getting it, patiently explain why you think this art project should remain funded at the same level instead of spending it on something else.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#948I read what the text says but I still do not understand what the point is they are trying to make. What is it that AI does exactly that they consider to be bad for mathmaticians? I thought that having AI solve prevously unsolved problems would be a good thing. Doesn't that knowledge give them new ideas and tools for them to solve the next big problem?
The tools would come from trying to solve NS, not from knowing it is true/false.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#949Earlier quoted context omitted.
> No amount of hand-wringing is going to put the cat back in the bag. Adapt or perish. We can and have put some ugly, hissing, spitting cats into bags, some of which weren't even in one to begin with: * Chattel slavery is illegal, and the vast, vast majority of humans agree it's appalling it ever wasn't. * Food manufacturers in the US are no longer allowed to put highly-dangerous additives to their products and hide…
Thank you for this response, and I will clarify. I would roughly lump all of those into "social issues," whereas I would put "using AI to advance math" under "technological progress." That's why one article likened it to Socrates's fear of the written word. In broad strokes, I would say that once a technology becomes available, no amount of social pressure will stop it from proliferating. If there's a distinction bei…
To expand further, I think it's interesting that both replies to my comments in this thread sort of alluded to the idea that I might be a corporate shill or at best a patsy. I feel like that couldn't be farther from the truth, I walked away from the software industry and corporate world years ago.
Perhaps I'm looking at this from a too zoomed-out or detached perspective. I'm just thinking about the concept of the technology at play and its future impacts regardless of who owns or controls them. But maybe that's naive. In today's connected world you can't separate those things, and I think I'm understanding that a lot of the outrage here is more about the socioeconomic implications of a big corporation suddenly "disrupting" a field that was largely owned by more altruistic academic institutions.
I do still think that the internet, despite largely being owned and controlled by the powers that be, has represented a great shift of power and agency to the individual, and is ultimately a socialist construct, and we will continue to see those changes over time, and that AI is an extension of that.
Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics
#950I don't know, people. We still really don't know how OpenAI or others are producing these results. It's all very hand wavy and trust-me-bro. How much money/time/compute have they really thrown at these problems? How much human involvement was there? What LLM did they even use? How much regular software was involved? They have given answers to some of those questions but no proof that that's actually what they did. I…
A very important point! In Tristan (NYU prof)’s write up he noted evidence of the OpenAI mathematician team doing a lot of correction and guidance along the way. We are never told about this with openness and clarity. At a minimum, complete disclosure and honesty is needed by the companies and about the precise role of their staff members.
The OpenAI staff kindly corrected the LLMs naive tries at solving NS? Impressive staff I must say.