Live data from Hacker News

A misalignment of AI in mathematics

mathandai.org

941–945 of 945 posts

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#941

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

What do we do about the problems that don't require many millions of dollars in resources? Last weekend I spun up a small agent swarm and pointed it at a field of math I have some affinity towards. Within four hours I had settled three conjectures, one of which is rather famous (for the field, not in general). It cost me about four hundred dollars. I am at a loss about what to do with these results. On one hand I fee…

Post them here and laugh about people trying to cite them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superpermutation

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#942

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Academia has been a toxic wasteland for decades. The ship caught fire and sunk long before open AI strip minded it prestige.

Oh, the patient is ill. Let's kill the patient.

The patient is dead. Let's finally bury her.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#943
post #200

As a mathematician maybe I am a little more optimistic than this declaration. I am thinking of Mochizuki's abc conjecture: He worked in relative isolation, and dumped a huge incomprehensible proof on the community (to oversimplify a bit). That's not totally unlike what might happen if AI generates a huge, incomprehensible proof of let's say RH. Well, what is the result? In the Mochizuki case, it was a lot of skeptici…

This comment represents the situation around Mochizuki's "proof" completely wrong. Yes, there was a lot of activity around 2012 (seminars, workshops etc.), but it was all wasted effort. No interesting mathematical ideas and tangents came out of it because the proof was just garbage, as conclusively etablished by Scholze & Stix in 2018. So Mochizuki's proof ended up in hundreds of hours of work wasted on nonsense. I don't think this is the type of community engagement that Tao and others have in mind.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#945

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This really resonates with me. I'm early in my PhD and I'm researching a niche form of data compression and IC design. I don't use any AI at all in my research, I do it the super old fashioned way, I read papers cover to cover and sections of textbooks to familiarise myself with the field. I genuinely enjoy doing this, it's really fun to think critically about what an author wrote or how a particular approach works.…

I’m no big AI cheerleader, but why don’t you try these models to see what they offer - they might suggest some things you haven’t thought of, or save you some time in your research. Are you sure they’d one-shot your algorithm? Maybe they’d come up with worse, maybe better, but you are in a perfect position to actually judge the validity of any claims a LLM makes in this realm, which most people are not. As to why bot…

[delayed]
Post reply on HN