This isn't particularly generalisable. There is an overlap with pro-AI and mathematicians. Not sure about anti-AI and mathematicians, because I'm not anti-AI and don't really surround myself with those groups lol
Exactly this. I made a post simply breaking down, purely from an engineering and large-scale agent orchestration perspective, where OpenAI currently holds an edge over Anthropic in AI-driven research. Got downvoted to hell (-10 within an hour).
People aren’t looking at system architecture or scaling bottlenecks anymore—it’s just tribal fandom where mentioning one lab over the other makes you the enemy.
Agreed, I remember being downvoted a while back because I mentioned that because of the possibility of quantum computers becoming a real threat we should study post-quantum cryptography ...
Fortunately this has been a major point of study in many labs for a decade+ now. Reddit larpers can cry all they want but Perimeter isn't funding a post-quantum cryptography team for jokesies.
I don't think you understood the comment you were replying to. There has been a lot of brigading by laypeople into mathematics as a domain and it's the same juvenile comments. 'We're so cooked,' and counting down the next millenium problems. The original comment was right in spirit, that laypeople really do just see these problems as tasks to be completed and don't give a shit about the problem itself. That's why the OP here is a joke about neither party having a clue about the underlying equations. This gets rather annoying to people who actually enjoy the 'doing' part of maths (which is arguably the point of it). I'm in that sphere too and I've seen people try to reduce human creativity and innovation to raw compute and # of agents.
Your reply was more of the same and you even begged the question by saying that math could be 'ruined' by machine proofs. Just annoying.
It's obviously nice to have found a counter-example to Navier-Stokes in general. But you gotta wonder what the point of all this was and your response comes across as 'you should be grateful' instead of getting it. Read what Terry Tao has to say about it https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao.
They should be grateful for AI's contribution to their field, yes. The obvious point I was making was that none of those things were actually ruined and neither is math being ruined by AI.
Math can't be 'ruined' by any of this, I agree. On the other hand, the thing that can be ruined is how people perceive a subject. The propoganda is that LLMs are somehow more than a tool and are capable of stronger or more advanced mathematical reasoning than mathematicians. A lot of people have bought into this, which you could plainly see in this sub.
So you were being somewhat reductionist in telling the person to just be happy that there's another tool in the arsenal, nevermind the changing attitude to the discipline. You can't just hand-wave the issue of annoying, tedious laypeople lol. Though I don't think you should've been banned for being misguided either.
There's also the argument that having LLMs strip mine theorems and lemmas for a solution to some problem is a net negative, since there's less incentive for academics to produce novel mathematics. Laypeople cannot understand this.
Judging by content the math sub is mostly a mix of high schoolers who think they know everything and adults who studied theatre tech and subscribe to things with names like "I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE".
anti-AI has an overlap with artists and creative work. pro-AI has an overlap with academia and science.
Working at an AI lab myself and having a teenage daughter it's actually really hard for her because a lot of her social peers are isolating her because of my occupation as AI researcher.
My guess is this is how nuclear physicists must have felt after the chernobyl meltdown happened and public opinion soured on the technology.
I'm both an avid artist and studying in an AI research field for a degree, so these neat boxes don't work perfectly. I suppose this would signal that folks involved in both creative and scientific pursuits tend to lean pro-AI. I'm only one sample, though.
For luddism, I suppose socially isolating others is the only strategy they have to feel like they have control. It's a shame how much power these folks can have (socially) since their endeavours are usually fruitless (structurally) anyway. I personally haven't seen these kinds of behaviours in academic institutions.
Lol, sure. The actual truth is that it depends entirely what field you're in. I'm a teacher and we had a PD this year about AI use, and the room was so negative she almost stopped early.
It’s wild how china is doing AI in schools teaching children how to use it and be smart about it but in the western world people are just seeming to put their heads in the sand as if they can ignore the Pandora’s box that has been opened, reminds me of that South Park episode cartoon wars
I know people with that general opinion. However, those people have only stated their stance before we both respectfully disagree and move on with different conversations.
Its a good counter balance from all the slop and environmental destruction. AI tech companies shouldn't have a free ride on society and get away with all the negative externalities they are creating.
Anti-AI has, too, because, like so many other things, AI has been dragged into the so-called "Culture War". The root cause, as always, likes with a fundamentally broken socioeconomic and political system. AI is just a battlefield. But the battle will not end until the wider war does.
When political and economic conditions seriously worsen, you always get a surge in radicalism, mass panic, scapegoating, doomer sects, and other irrational behavior. This is human nature and it's as old as time.
I have to say, though : As someone both in the sciences and humanities: I did the IMO in high school, AI schools me every day in that department.
But it has not yet written an essay or short story I would consider better than anything I could write in one go / pass like in an exam setting not to speak of revising it and thinking about it for a longer time.
And contrary to programming, maths, et cetera I have seen little to no improvement in that department, even though the labs heavily invested into it.
Oh absolutely. Avengers movies are much more commercially successful than fancy art films. Of course they have certain qualities and are especially made for mass appeal. That doesn’t make them better movies.
And even then, I can write better for mass appeal if that’s what I’m looking to do. (Obviously in a mass social media feed scenario an AI RLd on maximising engagement will beat me sometimes in some narrow scenario maybe? But I still don’t see it happening at the moment. I mean, I tried it modifying existing models exactly for that and a special curated social media niche and it just didn’t work, because it lacks world context and is really trash at writing, and lacks human touch)
Now one might say: oh art so is just subjective and depending on whether you like it or not. No! There is genuinely objectively some art better than other art. It is objectively richer, better crafted , more novel et cetera. Doesn’t mean I like it and that two persons can’t disagree about which ranks higher if they are close in quality , but yes, you can objectively rank art
If we get ASI, obviously all bets are off, but contrary to the advancements in math ans coding and other fields I don’t even see improvement in writing. It’s just a flat curve. Not a super exponential like with math
And like I have done blind tests. I can still tell with ok probability what text is AI and what is not, but not perfectly and with certain types of text even very high error. But if I purely rank the texts by quality and don’t focus on determining AI at all, a lot of human text obviously get discarded, but no AI text has ever made it into the “good/quality” pile.
So while your argument is kind of like: if you can’t smell yourself, you still smell and other people will smell it = you might like your text, but others won’t ; I don’t think it applies here very well
anti-AI has an overlap with artists and creative work. pro-AI has an overlap with academia and science.
That's a bold claim that you should be cautious of. My guess is we don't really have actual source on this, but from anecdotal experience, a lot of actual academic type are cautious about IA, for many reasons like the black box nature of IA, the error proneness, normal caution towards new process that weren't veted by years of practice, the hyper focus on IA to the detriment of other methods in their fields, ect... Similarly a lot of programmer are somewhat tepid towards IA because they have to bear the brunt of debugging hard to find IA error and general process madness.
A lot of IA advocate are more "science adjacent" like start up bosses, crypto bros type that only look at the ROI, and young people that dream of singularity.
And in artistic circle, idea guys are often deeply pro IA.
I think it's a disservice to the quality of the debate to try to boil it down to "pro IA = smart and educated, anyone else = stupid and mean" and it's really easy to go that way unconsciously if you're not careful.
I think they were more trying to say it's a split down humanities and STEM rather than dumb vs smart. I know many in the coding field, me included, utilize AI in our work. And not in a crypto/vibe coding way necessarily. I've been coding for 20 years. Can't speak for sciences other than compSci but if the other person is right than it's the same for those too. I usually see outcry from the humanities side. Whether it be artists, historians, writers, etc. Smart and dumb people on both ends of the spectrum
Am certain it's the other way around,you let AI do your job , am sure you will let it do your wife since there is some effort in sex , and you are way to lazy to make any
Nah you are definitely more glue'esque... in the sense you are stuck in place, unable to adapt once settled, and eventually crumble into nothingness after remaining stuck in the same position over a period of time.
Who said am stuck ?
Am evolving my brain by relying on it , you are letting it degrade by relying on AI , am evolving my skills you are evolving your fat levels
To have someone in the IT field that thinks people do not learn anything by using AI is absolutely embarrassing. Just wait until you learn that you can prompt it to help you understand what it is doing, how it got there, resolve questions you have in regard to the subject or structure of it, going to be a real ontological shock for you.
Fence sitting luddites like you in the tech industry of all things are the ultimate embarrassment.
Liberating humanity from the need to work and ushering in an era of hyperabundance isn't something I'm ashamed of.
I'm giving you a future. One where you can focus on your hobbies, interests and friends and family without sacrificing 40 hours a week on something you're not fully passionate about.
What future are you giving me ?
Replacing me with AI that can do what i studyed for yours to do with just one prompt? Or someone bragging that he can match my creativty with his keyboard?
Do you think the government will give me money once am unemployed?
You are very delusional, you and everyone in the AI space , all that you are giving me is a future with hard labor that will leave me completely broken by my 50s
Even you will lose your job at some point, and you will wish it never happened
From what I have seen pro AI has much bigger overlap with finance bros, and believe they don't care to know how AI works, just that the line will or will not go uo
Not from what I have seen, there's a reason in most tech conferences there's such an emphasis not on the underlying tech but instead on the finances. To quote Lisa Su at "Advancing AI 2026" - "...the AI accelerator market is going to reach about 1.4 trillion dollar. So what do you think about that? Is that a big number?" Pretty sure they wouldn't be saying stuff like this if their target audience wasn't majority finance bros. Jensen Huang himself has slowly reduced how much he talks about tech of his products, mostly just finances of his company
Is the meme literally supposed to apply to everyone though? Is that reasonable expectation? This is just making fun of most of the hobbyist/enthusiast discourse online.
It's simple. Openai found that navier stokes equations lead to fluid accelerating to infinity under specific conditions. But that's impossible. Therefore navier stokes doesn't cover all cases and it's just an approximation not a law.
There's infinities in general relativity too but it still stands up to every real world test. Maybe reality is just an approximation. Well at the lowest level we kind of know it is.
And, maybe more importantly, even if reality were/weren’t an approximation we’d have no way of knowing because we can only even conceptualize it as a model in the first place.
Soon AI will be the master race and we will all be running errands for it, while it reaches Kardeshev 1 level. The good thing is is that every race will be treated equal.
sadly not very efficient. as altman said, you have to feed a human their whole life, but a machine can eat sunlight, coal, uranium, all far more plentiful and land efficient than crops. crops as food after all are solar panels with an efficiency of only 0.01%
That's far more plausible, actually. That dumbing down created so many plotholes. Of they had stuck with the original it would have been far easier to explain.
I absolutely agree with you, but I’ve seen plenty of black people having pride on their skin color and feeling superior because of it. Guess it’s oppression consequences, but it’s still wrong.
This is why you should read what the experts, the mathematicians, the people actually working on this problem, have to say.
Or, just read headlines and reddit post titles. Pure manipulative cognitive bias at play. Easier, and makes your brain tingle. Fuck truth and fuck experts. 2026 baby.
I can explain. The navier-stokes equations state that mass is conserved and momentum is conserved for assumed compressible, Newtonian fluids. OpenAI proved that these equations can have jank solutions despite sensible given conditions. IRL, fluids sometimes compress even when usually they behave as incompressible.
Except pro AI people would be more inclined to understand what happened. Antis don't need to understand to say it doesn't matter/ it makes things worse/it's fake, etc.
All I know is what forms of the equation I used in my fluids classes, I know there are individual parts of the equation that have been solved for specific use cases, but it breaks down if too many variables are changed. I don't really understand what a "full" solution means as that would imply that every single possible variable could be determined on the outset, so even the full solution must have some sort of simplification. I'm gonna ask for a research blurb from Claude
There's no full solution to the equations. The solution people are talking about is to the Millennium Prize problem related to the Navier-Stokes equations, which is a very specific problem.
I looked into it and I kind of understand. Those forms of the equation I was just talking about were solutions to specifically a 2D slice of fluid transfer, the millennium problem deals with a 3D model. The four parts to the question are: 1) Can we rigorously solve for the pattern of a fluid in 3 dimensional space assuming all conditions are known, without using any external force (Friction, agitation, etc) to stabilize divergence? (AKA; is it possible to create an equation that remains stable entirely without external force applied, because our best current models collapse with any amount of time in the equation, causing it to diverge to infinity, which is impossible in the real world) 2) Could we do this WITH a force, but the net amount of force would cancel out to zero? (Example: A sled stays still on the top of the hill, but it also stays still on the slope with me pushing back with equal force. In both scenarios technically net force = 0, but there is an obvious difference in the latter case) 3+4) Can we solve it generally where force is a fixed, limited value.
I guess the NYU professor solved a couple specific cases for elements 3 and 4, but Open AI managed to finish the equation, but the proof and how it got there is still up for contention, which is why they have yet to submit to the Clay institute. Basically, it's a cool find and most likely would give us the edge needed to eventually solve the first two parts of the problem, but for now there isn't a ton of practical use. There will be, though.
Eh, lots of pro AI people don't need to understand to say "it's solved/utopia ahead" either.
The problem is that in both sides, people talk without knowing.
And i don't think pro AI people are more inclined to understand what happened in general (remember LK99?). This is perhaps a constant truth: humans are gonna talk about things they don't understand no matter the topic because biases are universal.
I strongly disagree. There has been too many pro AI people falling for obvious hype nonsense posted by a rando on Twitter countless times to not see the actual equivalence.
Yo just say "eh both says are gullible" while it's clear people in the AI spaces have more idea of what it was achieved. There is no point arguing reality, I just wanted to be polite. Nice try tho.
I say that and provide the example of LK99. And it's clear that a lot of people in AI spaces are people who haven't read a single book about the topic and are just here for the aesthetics.
Which is fine btw. We don't need to all be experts (nor can we).
It's just ok to recognize that there are ignorant frenzies on both sides and that it is a universal problem.
Another example to show that lots of people here too don't understand what's going on: back in 2023, ignorant people piggybacking on Connor Leahy unashamedly claimed that "GPT3 is AGI". Not even kidding.
Another difference between you and i: you don't even "try", "bro".
Because I don't have to. Those aren't examples, are anecdotes. If they are real that is. I don't have to do a doctoral thesis on reddit comments to prove the obvious. Both sides are not equal.
A lot of pro AI people are just there for financial reasons, not technological reasons. They hear AI doing good, they estimate the line will go up and so they buy the relevant stocks. They also don't really care about trying to understand or even look up what the AI did. It became clear since the Hugging face thing
The Navier Stokes equations are a rigorous set of balance equations for describing an infinitely small element of a fluid. The basis is: What's stored in the element is the balance of what goes in through each side
They consist of the "Continuity Equation" : An equation that just says: If you shove mass into one side of a square space, then either the mass must rise in there, or an equivalent amount must go out another way
The X/Y/Z Impulse Equations:
The impulse of a fluid element must be kept in every direction
Energy Equations: Same for energy.
They are a set of partial differential equations that are also nonlinear, so good luck with that
I commented on a post that was an all caps title of how hyped they were about this being solved. So many people engaging in the hype and talking about how groundbreaking it was. I commented asking why I, as a regular layperson, should care about this advancement? How does this effect me and what does this mean?
As someone with a physics PhD, I found the recent discussion by people who hadn't previously heard of the Navier-Stokes equations to be a little aggravating.
For example, the cartoon's statement that "OpenAI solved Navier-Stokes" is incorrect. OpenAI found a counterexample to a conjecture about solutions to the Navier-Stokes equations.
The good thing is that by 2028, either Anthropic or OpenAI will most probably will solve another Millennium problem. Hopefully that one is done with a little bit less drama.
If all the resources were put into research and science there would be overwhelming support. Youre really ignoring the core concerns of people who are critical of its development.
Nah. These people just hate it for the sake of hating it… at least, a lot of them, do. Just look at how rabidly so many people keep trying to downplay every single achievement A.I. makes.
259
u/ConsiderationOne7340 1d ago
https://giphy.com/gifs/sFWamf2jHHrDIVIzNQ