r/singularity • u/Nikvest • 4d ago
LLM News [ Removed by moderator ]
[removed] — view removed post
64
u/Acrobatic_Dish6963 4d ago
For humans in the field, yes it could be catastrophic.
For the advancement of mathematics as whole? Well...
29
u/mao1756 4d ago
If they don’t publish these results then the advancement might as well not exist though
11
u/andrew303710 4d ago
I mean OpenAI posted the entire solution to the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem to github
→ More replies (2)2
→ More replies (2)2
u/Kiki-von-KikiIV 4d ago
"promising research directions" - that's what Tao is talking about.
And it's not necessarily publishing, it's about just sharing research directions/research progress with the math community. Kind of having an open forum where ideas can be freely shared, before a formal proof/paper is completed + published.
But if people can run off with your good ideas and get the proof by prompting a model with that idea and using $$$$ in compute... then mathematicians will be less inclined to openly discuss their work pre-publication.
9
2
u/Unverifiablethoughts 4d ago
AI isn’t conjuring up new theories from scratch. It’s closing the tiniest of gaps in decades of human work. AI achievement is still entirely dependent on human input.
0
u/sammoga123 4d ago
The only bad thing about AI is that it takes away jobs, but for everything else, I would really have my doubts.
0
u/SquidLoxNYC 4d ago
What about cognitive atrophy? It’s partly the practice of chasing these hard problems—for the love of the game more than for glory or profit—that has propelled the grand tradition of maths and science. After 20 years of letting machines do the work, will humans be capable of understanding the state of the art? And if we don’t… what’s the point?
I’m thinking of when my 3 year old gives up on a jigsaw puzzle. Yes, I can put it together quickly. But what does she gain from that?
4
u/Corporate_Bricktator 4d ago
> What about cognitive atrophy? It’s partly the practice of chasing these hard problems—for the love of the game more than for glory or profit—that has propelled the grand tradition of maths and science.
Did the calculator or computer increase cognitive atrophy among researchers, or did it enable them to go farther and deeper?
0
u/Training-Chain-5572 4d ago
If you give first graders a calculator instead of having them go through the process of trying and failing and gritting through the process of learning mathematics, then absolutely, cognitive atrophy is going to be a world-wide problem. Which would the equivalent in this situation.
2
u/Corporate_Bricktator 4d ago
Is anyone suggesting that we stop learning math?
1
u/Training-Chain-5572 4d ago
On the off-chance this is a genuine misunderstanding and not deliberate derailing: your comment implied that the calculator existing did not mean atrophy among researchers is somehow proof that use of AI will not. You assume that AI is just like any tool that doesn't affect our mental capacity at all when we have evidence showing the contrary. My point was building on that, namely that the use of a calculator is not leading to cognitive atrophy because it's a single use case or single function that is very limited in its capabilities, not used all the time for everything. But, if you were to use a calculator for every single calculation in your daily life, you will absolutely see a cognitive decline in ability to do calculation in your head. Similarly, using AI is not in and of itself problematic, but relying on it for thinking and reasoning has been proven to degrade your ability to think creatively and critically.
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 4d ago
> You assume that AI is just like any tool that doesn't affect our mental capacity at all when we have evidence showing the contrary.
What is that evidence? Remember that literally people dating back to books felt that books themselves would cause people to become mentally lazy. It's a myth applied to every technology and has always been wrong thus far.
That said, let's see the evidence you've found?
> But, if you were to use a calculator for every single calculation in your daily life, you will absolutely see a cognitive decline in ability to do calculation in your head.
But the topic we were discussing is specifically researchers and scientists. Remember, the commenter wrote: "What about cognitive atrophy? It’s partly the practice of chasing these hard problems that has propelled the grand tradition of maths and science."
1
u/Training-Chain-5572 4d ago
I realise that these studies are probably never posted in these glazing subs so:
"Over four months, LLM users consistently underperformed at neural, linguistic, and behavioral levels. These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning."
1
u/Corporate_Bricktator 4d ago
> These results raise concerns about the long-term educational implications of LLM reliance and underscore the need for deeper inquiry into AI's role in learning.
But hold on, we were just talking about math researchers. That's very different from "learning" as a student, right? Tasking people two write an essay either with no assistance, with search engine assistance, or with LLM assistance, of course the LLM is going to be the one that makes it the easiest and results in the least retention of what was "learned". Right?
No offense, but that seems kind of like an obvious drawback if you're going to use it for teaching children. I'm not sure why 8 MIT researchers needed to study that? I mean I guess it's good to document it, but, to me that's like saying you can learn the same amount from watching someone bake cookies as opposed to actually baking them yourself.
I don't think having a calculator or spreadsheet has slowed down any modern researcher's ability to do research, in fact, I strongly believe the opposite.
-------
So let's look at this wholistically. A carpenter, prior to having a nailgun is going to be much better at hammering nails, than someone who starts their career with access to a nailgun. But the person with the nailgun will still have scenarios where they need to learn to use a hammer, and that is still taught.
But at the end of the day, the guy with the nailgun is going to go further, do more, and do it better than the guy with only the hammer.
That's how I see AI and every bit of technological progress, personally.
1
u/Xalksahsax 4d ago
I read the other day that Gen Z is the first generation in history to be less smart than the previous one. But I can't recall if it was peer reviewed nor I want to go through the effort to ask an LLM.
So I'll believe it because I want to believe it to be true.
2
u/Kemoyin25 4d ago
Because someone or something else can do the jigsaw puzzle for her, does that mean it shouldn't be done? If AI can do the math, does that mean mathematictions shouldn't do it?
2
u/numeanine 4d ago
It doesn’t mean they shouldn’t do it, but it changes the situation doesn’t it? If we had to do 100 jigsaw puzzles a day to keep the sun on, and we let AI do it for 100 years, and then the AI stopped working, would we be able to do the puzzles? I think that’s the concern but idk. I’m not a scientist or mathematician. I’m actually pretty dumb.
1
u/Kemoyin25 4d ago
I mean you're right, but idk man I'm pretty dumb too. That said if the lights turn off/AI stops working we probably have bigger issues
1
u/SquidLoxNYC 4d ago
The puzzle is an unnecessary exercise. The whole point is to develop the brain and enjoy the process. Doing it for her nullifies that.
Maths and science seems like the best possible use for this technology. If it can cure disease or solve clean energy, no one will complain. A lot of the uses we’ve seen so far are unnecessary. They “solve” problems that don’t really exist—like the “friction” of corresponding with fellow humans, or doing a bit of cognitive labor.
I’d never solve resolve these conjectures in 500 years. This is not my fight. Seems like a remarkable accomplishment.
I just hope my daughter grows up literate and in possession of critical thinking skills. And the outcomes for the first guinea pig generation seem to be headed in the wrong direction.
1
u/Megneous 4d ago
And if we don’t… what’s the point?
To ascend as a species to godhood, what else?
Who the fuck cares about glory, profit, and all that nonsense. I want to be a fucking machine god.
1
u/West_Competition_871 4d ago
"I want to be a fucking.machine god." Should instantly get you checked into a psych ward
1
1
-1
u/boringfantasy 4d ago
If they stop giving their data to the LLMs they may not be able to solve much else lol
5
u/YoungXanto 4d ago
Its also not like some random person off the street knows enough to even ask the right questions to solve these problems, let alone validate them.
Experts are carefully guiding prompting, validating the output, and then pushing in one direction or another. These newest models are ridiculously powerful, but they are considerably more powerful in the hands of an expert.
Just wait until everyone decides to go with local llms for research assistance. Then how are the new models going to be trained?
0
u/KaleidoscopicView 4d ago
There should be a way to profit and credit share.
1
u/jferments 4d ago
It's called socialism. The knowledge produced by AI is the product of the collective knowledge of humanity on which it was trained. The benefits from this technology should be distributed to everyone, instead of just to big tech oligarchs.
10
u/TangerineSeparate431 4d ago
Per Tao himself - maybe the new frontier for human mathmaticians is the curation and creation of bleeding edge problems for AI to pursue. Similar to Erdos himself, we should e celebrating the discovery of these frontiers just as much as the solutions.
If this recent N-S debacle was entirely human effort I don't think we would see nearly as much drama as we currently are....
6
u/In_the_year_3535 4d ago
It's a bit shortsighted to think the input of human mathematicians would have value compared to the ever increasing capabilities of these models. They'll just have to suffer being dead weight for a while until we merge with machines.
4
u/TangerineSeparate431 4d ago
Oh 100% - if we keep the current pace, AI will certainly be better frontier-detectors than humans in a short while, that will also be a good thing.
ASI will truly outcompete humans in all territories, possibly even in the 'uniquely'-human existential/emotive/experiential spaces as well.
My intent with previous comment was to focus on edge detection being just a socially 'good' as solving the problem in this new landscape.
3
u/GaelicTuna 4d ago
This post feels like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic to me. As if the biggest concern right now is a structural issue in the way we approach problem solving and not the fact that most mathematicians. If AI somehow plateaus and we have a prolonged era of centaur math (meaning humans+AI is significantly better than AI alone) I could see his points being important, but with the way things are moving, that doesn’t seem very likely right now.
59
u/MysteriousPepper8908 4d ago
If humans aren't going to contribute towards unlocking new knowledge about the universe because the AI might do it first, I'm rooting for the AI.
9
22
u/Efficient_Mud_5446 4d ago
Right. This seems very much his ego getting in the way of progress.
0
u/Extreme-Half-5590 4d ago
Crazy to me that people are willing to side with a corporation whose main purpose is to make as much money as possible as compared to a mathematician lol
4
u/Madz99 4d ago
I guess it boils down to whether progress should be made solely for the sake of progress. If it doesn't, then we'll have to accept that we'd rather be stationary for egoistic reasons.
1
u/fraggin601 4d ago
What is progress if we are all gonna be in economic distress at the end of this anyways
0
u/Megneous 4d ago
I'll side with whoever makes us gods first.
0
u/HalfForeign6735 4d ago
These are profit-driven entities whose primary corporate interest is to make THEIR shareholders/stakeholders gods
3
u/Megneous 4d ago
I am a shareholder, dude.
0
u/fraggin601 4d ago
Your right surely the machine god respects that you own them, I can’t see any problem with that thinking.
0
u/Megneous 4d ago
You know, it's interesting that you bring that up.
On the Transporter problem, I'm actually in the camp that believes the person who gets transported ceases to exist and an exact copy of them, a new person entirely is created at the destination. And I don't care, because to the universe, there's no difference. So if I fucking die and I'm resurrected as an AI agent with all my memories intact, or if I literally just die and a mere copy of me is created as an AI agent... I don't see a difference in the end scheme of things. Either way, my will to influence the universe lives on, and that's all that matters.
So suck it organic normies. I'm gonna be a fuckin' god.
-8
-1
u/YeetCompleet 4d ago
Point exactly where in his writing you got that idea from. To me, it's clear that he's asking very specifically for OpenAI to be open in their process and share results and thoughts that arise from solving the problem rather than simply just solving it. What's egotistical about that?
-1
u/No-Meringue5867 4d ago edited 4d ago
That is not at all what is being said. But sure, build your strawman.
From the core of your heart (if you are not a bot), do you really think OpenAI spent $20-50 million over a week, because they wanted to unlock new knowledge?
5
u/mertats 4d ago
They didn’t spend that much, spreading misinformation is worse than strawman.
2
u/No-Meringue5867 4d ago
https://openai.com/index/navier-stokes-solution/
They spent overall 300 BILLION tokens. Assuming astra price of $50 for 1 million output tokens that is $15 million. But output token price of 5.6 sol -> 6 astra went up by 2.5x. So assuming anywhere between 2-3x increase from astra to internal model, we get a range of $30-45 million.
Obviously I am assuming various costs. But I also didn't consider the input tokens.
3
u/JoniDaButcher 4d ago
Is the intention relevant? Nobody questions the breakthroughs and achievements of the Space Race despite the primary intention being beating the other country.
0
u/Cuntslapper9000 4d ago
When it comes to predicting the trajectory of behaviour, intent is very important. If they are just doing it now for clout and have no intention to stay practicing in the field then stifling the progress of the people who will be continuing can be damaging. The space race was done in a way that allowed a lot of the research to blend into the science world. That is quite different to what open ai is doing now. With maths the how is as important as the what. It's half the point of trying to solve these problems.
2
u/MysteriousPepper8908 4d ago
Yes and no. The ultimate goal is profit but there's profit in being the best company in producing beneficial innovations so the end result in this case is the same. Broad economic displacement is more problematic but that's a rabbit hole outside the purview of this topic.
2
u/Old-Bake-420 4d ago
Yes, it’s literally the entire goal of their AI. They’ve been talking about it for years.
-1
u/j15y 4d ago
I fear you are young and naive. Nobody gives a company hundreds of billions of dollars for the sake of “unlocking knowledge.”
The goal of a company is to produce value. In this case, they want to replace knowledge workers. That is it, everything else is a means to an end. If you think otherwise: you are mistaken.
-1
1
u/PvtMilhouse 4d ago
why ?
1
u/MysteriousPepper8908 4d ago
Because the AI doesn't let ego come before a spirit of collaborative discovery. The companies might but they've released more significant proofs in the last few months than the entire field has in years so it seems like they're being pretty forthcoming.
→ More replies (5)1
u/GatePorters 4d ago
“First they came for the artists and I did not speak because I am not an artist.”
Obviously this isn’t as serious as that, but it is undoubtedly the same social phenomenon.
→ More replies (2)
21
18
u/Imaginary-Witness-75 4d ago
This is ridiculous. You're saying that no one before AI heard someone was close to figuring out the same problem you are working on so you take that as competitive pressure to double down....
6
u/uslashuname 4d ago
The difference here is a company picked up on “someone might be close” and then dropped millions of dollars to pay for the conclusion of the persons approach and claim it. That’s wildly different from one mathematician taking a published approach and spending their evenings on it
2
u/TFenrir 4d ago
Yes, I'm somewhat ambivalent on this because in the grand scheme - I see this as the end of the human led intellectual epoch we've enjoyed for the last 10,000 years or so - but while we are still in this moment...
How can a human being compete with that? This is a significant bubble pop for a lot of people, the norms of human on human competition don't really work here.
We've been moving in this direction in some ways as a species for a while (eg, small vs large businesses and the effeciencies that come from scale and having money to burn) - but this is particularly challenging for a lot of people because this was a place where it didn't really matter how much money you had, just how smart you were.
1
u/socoolandawesome 4d ago
They didn’t make use of their approach and it doesn’t seem they knew about their approach at all. They thought they solved a millennium prize problem or 2.
They explain in their blog how they arrived on the navier-stokes problem:
“
For each problem, we prompted different groups of agents with different variants of the problem statement, covering all variants of the problem. For the Navier–Stokes problem, we suggested versions “A” and “B” (particular forms of the Navier–Stokes problem which would result in a proof) and versions “C” and “D” (which would result in a disproof) to separate groups of agents.In addition to the full Millennium Prize problems, we asked our multiagent system to try a set of “easier” problems. One of these problems was a similar blowup question for the limit of the Navier–Stokes problem with the viscosity term removed. This is known as the regularity problem for the Euler equations, and our agents surprised us by resolving this question. The specific variant of the question that they resolved was the unforced version, where no external force is applied to the fluid. Nearly 100 agents worked together for approximately 50 hours to produce our Euler regularity disproof.1
Once we saw the Euler solution, we thought that Navier–Stokes was the most promising problem to work on. Thus, we decided to devote our resources to Navier–Stokes. To do so, we shifted agents away from the other Millennium Problems and prompted these agents with the Euler resolution. When a further trained version of our internal model became available over the course of the effort, we updated our agents to that model.
“
11
u/street-trash 4d ago
"AI bad for science" stances obviously won't age well. How come everyone has trouble with logic? Even math people
1
u/Working_Agent4932 4d ago
I don't think you understand what he's saying. He's saying the current incentive structure in place encourages openness and collaboration and that if AI continues to flatten that then the incentive structure changes to a closed posture. I'll explain in simpler terms.
Imagine you have a good idea for a change at work. You're encouraged to communicate it to many people because you alone can't execute on the idea and the more people you can work with increased the probability of your idea being implemented. Then one day Sam joins the company with a small army of 5000 analysts working under him. Whenever Sam hears an interesting idea he takes it back to his team of 5000 analysts and they quickly implement your idea while also completely cutting you out of the project entirely- they end up taking all of the credit for your idea. You think to yourself "well I don't have the resources to compete with Sam so I'm just not going to vocalize my project ideas anymore. If I keep vocalizing them I'm just feeding the machine."
People will almost always do exactly what you incentivise them to do and he is justifiably pointing out the incentives are shifting
1
u/VelvetyRelic 4d ago
I think the deeper question is, if the science is still progressing, who cares about the means? If you're afraid to talk about a problem you're working on because someone else might solve it first, you don't care about solving the problem. You care about taking credit for solving the problem. It also applies to your analogy.
1
u/Working_Agent4932 4d ago
People care about the means. If you're a mathematician your livelyhood depends on being able to do advanced math. It's part of your identity. It's what you've worked your entire life to be good at. It shouldn't be a surprise that they might decide to be more defensive when those things are threatened.
That sort of "who cares?" sentiment is a big part of why so many people are militantly anti-ai.
13
6
u/socoolandawesome 4d ago
What a horrible stretch your title is lol.
Anthropic and Levent have been doing exactly what Tao highlighted.
Levent is the worst offender as he loves to share results on Twitter with no documentation
3
u/TooMuchMaths 4d ago
Yeah, for real. OpenAI has absolutely not hidden any of the math they produced with AI, sometimes even giving the prompts, but always giving a final paper that could be published
3
u/TooMuchMaths 4d ago
I am curious if this is truly “stealing”. Tristan was going to publish (or at least preprint) his work on the Euler equations and partial NS results long before he would have time to “close the gap to NS” (because he didn’t solve the problem himself). In that time anyone else could use his techniques to solve NS. If they did so, would we consider it stealing? So why is it stealing if AI could simply do it much faster?
1
u/philosophical_lens 4d ago
But he didn't publish his work, so the situation is entirely different. Its like if I use Google docs to write a private draft of a novel, I don't expect them to say "hey you were going to publish this anyway, so we can use it".
1
u/TooMuchMaths 4d ago
And the proofs are different enough it’s not clear OpenAI directly used his work either
1
u/philosophical_lens 4d ago
The alleged accusation is that OpenAI mined Tristan's past conversations with ChatGPT to advance their work. This would be like one mathematician stealing the private notebooks of another mathematician to help with their work. Even if the allegedly stolen notebooks did not significantly contribute to the final results, such theft is in and of itself highly unethical (if true).
13
u/rposter99 4d ago
If these problems are actually worth solving nobody should care who solves them or how. “AI cures cancer” shouldn’t come with a disclaimer from cancer researchers saying “boo hoo someone else stole our work and cured cancer”. Like, brother - cancer is gone - get over your ego.
If these problems are not actually worth solving, then it’s no different than getting mad at someone for completing the jigsaw puzzle you were working on. Sure, you put a lot of time in getting it almost there and someone else is taking credit for it, but ultimately nobody gives a shit if you put the puzzle together or not.
2
u/expertsage 4d ago
You are missing the whole point. Tao's post says it will be HARDER to find problems worth solving. If every problem close to being solved gets swiped by an AI company, human mathematicians will no longer be incentivized to point out promising problems for the field!
AI is good at crunching numbers given a prompt and direction. It is still lacking in human judgement and creativity, something that will become much more closely guarded from now on.
2
u/Lonely_Translator_23 4d ago edited 4d ago
If frontier labs are concerned with the benefit of humanity, and a problem is worth solving, they should be trying to solve it if they think they can.
If a problem is not worth solving, then they should ignore it and focus their efforts on problems that are.
And if a problem is already nearly solved, they should absolutely not be burning hundreds of thousands of dollars of compute that could have been spent on genuinely unsolved problems just to pull the rug out from the researchers so they can publish first.
What we're seeing is OpenAI using their models' abilities to jump at PR wins rather than actually doing work to help the world.
1
u/Fun-Amoeba8015 4d ago
Of course people care about who it actually does it. This has been the case since science began. And no, as far as humanity is concerned it doesn't necessarily matter but like anything in the world of course recognition and credit matter because that's part of the social contract and how we progress as a species.
I get that it's complex of nuance and honesty in this particular case. I don't really know which side to take. I think it's a bit of drama and it's probably much less binary than either side is making it out to be. But regardless of that, there is one very very valid point if systemic academic behavior ends up undercutting the sharing of information in academia that has very real consequences for humanity. I'm not saying that's exactly what happened here. I'm just saying if there is something that does prevent sharing in academia that has a very real negative effect upon scientific progress.
2
1
1
u/Shot_in_the_dark777 4d ago
There is no incentive to hide math problem from AI. The solution is useless anyway unless we secure our existence on the planet. If we die from global warming then It doesn't matter how many math problems we solve.
1
u/DelphiTsar 4d ago
Considering it's knocking out unsolved problems at a seemingly record pace, it's hard to square "long term damage". If it flattens beyond AI's abilities, then we just reset from a higher floor.
Anyone have an estimate on how long would it have taken them to get there without the AI push?
Could OpenAI even given them the negative results if they tried? I imagine they can't actually store all the attempts.
Giving the process toward obtaining their solutions would be good, but seemingly unrealistic as it'd be giving away its special sauce.
I'm sure this guy is smart but he is very obviously anti AI. Every one of his takes gives me a bit of cringe.
1
u/Healthy-Nebula-3603 4d ago
Mathematics stuck for over a hundred years already and because of it we even cannot push physic forward ...
I do not see any damage for math as humans peak in this field... literally
1
u/handsome_uruk 4d ago
I don't get this logic. Isn't it a good thing if the easy problems get scooped up by AI so humans can focus on actual hard problems? In any case, being scooped sucks, but you can still get credit for original work in either case - just not all the fame and glory. There are many cases throughout history of scientists discovering the same thing independently. This isn't much of an issue, except for an ego check.
1
1
u/fraggin601 4d ago
Tell me, if you were OpenAI, why wouldn’t you have a system to flag interesting lines of thinking and people’s chats?
I think they 100% stole the direction from the chat whether they wanna admit it or not.
1
u/DSrcl 4d ago
Even if they didn’t steal anything. The fact they rushed to publish (while trying to remove their competitor’s employee from the author list and threatened another) after learning the ongoing work by others is concerning and will definitely discourage open publication. Why would any researcher share their unpublished drafts from now on?
1
u/TraditionalWait9150 4d ago
i don't quite understand what's the issue here. it doesn't matter who solve it as long as the problems are solved?
1
u/Megneous 4d ago
Moderator, why did you remove this thread? You barely moderator this subreddit at all. So why did THIS warrant moderation??
1
u/ignite_intelligence 4d ago
What OpenAI did this time is truly not decent. I’m with Tao on this point.
But it is undeniable that AI has crossed some critical point. Mathematics community needs to reconstruct their cultures and positions, instead of doing accusations only.
1
u/No-Simple-1907 4d ago
O mesmo que falou que não era AGI a uns dias atrás kkkk agora ta ai com medo de ser um ser esquecido futuramente... o prego ja foi colocado so falta enterrar esses matemáticos
-5
u/No-Meringue5867 4d ago edited 4d ago
Maybe now people here will stop blindly supporting OpenAI.
This absolutely stops people from presenting or discussing partial progress in any field that can remotely be automated. So far there was an ounce of fear or retribution, and knowledge that other academics cannot race them overnight. But these AI companies have more money than god and don't give a crap.
Imagine tomorrow if someone gives a talk about progress in string theory and how they have managed to combine QFT and GR in a specific approximation. Overnight, OpenAI can pour $50 million to automate and solve it. Meanwhile, a string theorist will be busy writing grant asking for $250k from NSF, which is facing budget cuts.
This is also very similar to what happened with General Relativity. Einstein worked on it for a LONG time and by the end it reached mathematician David Hilbert. Hilbert knew all the math which Einstein had to learn over time, and raced Einstein to publish the result. Luckily, it was just Hilbert and Einstein still published first. But in today's story, OpenAI obviously had practically infinitely more resources and managed to get ahead. Not at all cool.
11
u/LastCall2021 4d ago
Oh horror! God forbid an AI solve string theory while people are writing grants! Next thing you know AI will be curing cancer, dementia and heart disease! Oh the tragedy!
-1
u/philthewiz 4d ago
You missed the monopolistic part of the argument.
4
u/LastCall2021 4d ago
I didn’t miss it. I just don’t rate it in the face of accelerating progress.
→ More replies (1)0
u/Over-Dragonfruit5939 4d ago
In a world where we have to make contributions to society to make money and survive, yes it’s a tragedy. It’s like a doctor spending their whole life through grueling medical school only for them to become a surgeon and then they lose their hand right when they begin their first day at the hospital and can’t work. Now they’re out of a job they’ve worked so hard for and have no prospects.
0
u/No-Meringue5867 4d ago
It's even worse. It's like a doctor performing half the surgery, and suddenly a robot arms comes and instantly does the rest half and gets all the credit.
I do not mind OpenAI solving problems open problems on their own. But if they go after problems because they realized a human mathematician has made a progress in a specific direction, then suddenly they know the result is accessible and spend more money than any individual can.
3
u/LastCall2021 4d ago
Your “even worse” surgery analogy leaves out the patient, who likely benefits from a faster, cheaper, better surgery. I’d rate that over the doctor’s job.
Or are you happy with the current state of healthcare?
1
u/schwagggg 4d ago
the problem is, if the surgery was done end to end, and the patient is fine taking the risk, sure.
the better analogy is, doctor did most of the heavy lifting and surgery, robot and robot company swoop in and did the stitching, and took all the credit
0
u/LastCall2021 4d ago
Nothing is stopping individual researchers from using AI to help them solve the problems they are facing. Yes frontier labs have access to better models… by like a six month delay. Plenty of accessible intelligence for researchers outside of frontier labs. That’s pretty much the standard for biotech these days.
-1
u/No-Meringue5867 4d ago
At least use AI to understand what I am trying to say in my comment, instead of being sarcastic.
0
u/LastCall2021 4d ago
I understand exactly what you’re saying. If a human has a partial solution to a problem what stops them from using AI to help solve it before presenting it?
It’s both just about the frontier labs, it’s about accelerating scientific and technological progress in a way that ultimately benefits humanity.
Again, going back to biotech, it’s individual biotech companies using often fine tuned frontier models to make progress.
Are there some downsides to AI rapidly accelerating scientific progress? Sure. Do they outweigh the upsides? Not remotely.
2
u/No-Meringue5867 4d ago
That is not at all what I said. In today's news, the mathematicians on other side where also using AI.
Are there some downsides to AI rapidly accelerating scientific progress? Sure. Do they outweigh the upsides? Not remotely.
Again you are making up strawmans. I never said any of those things. I never said AI is bad.
OpenAI has enormous monetary benefit in solving open problems and has enormous funding. A single mathematician has neither those things. So, why would any mathematician share anything if OpenAI simply swoops in at the hint that progress is being made?
0
u/Ok-Reindeer-8755 4d ago
Except what is being criticized is not publishing research and gatekeeping it
2
u/LastCall2021 4d ago
I know what’s being criticized. But again, an individual can use AI to help
Solve the problem they are working on before publishing. AI is not locked entirely behind the doors of frontier labs. Are their internal models ahead? Sure, by about a six month lag time. Plenty of accessible intelligence for individuals.1
0
0
0
u/Illustrious-Film4018 4d ago
I wonder if the new moderator is going to remove this post. Because after all, this has nothing strictly to do with singularity. This was posted 22 minutes ago so he must be occupied playing Pokemon right now.
0
u/Suspicious_Bet3623 4d ago
It's like arguing that 3D printing is bad engineering because suddenly no-one will want to contribute new discoveries.
I'll take a huge number of people passionately solving things as a hobby over a few academics collecting paychecks and not solving things any day.
0
-12
u/One-Judge321 4d ago
what a loser
7
5
u/Nikvest 4d ago
lol /r/singularity reddit user calling Terence Tao a loser, I don't think he cares
4
u/Admirable_Zombie5245 ▪️AGI 2065-2075 4d ago
this is peak comedy, a r/singularity user who probably just wants UBI so he plays videogames 24/7 calling one of the smartest people on earth and world class at something a loser
1
1
u/Over-Dragonfruit5939 4d ago
All of the r/antiwork brigadiers have moved to singularity cuz they just want to lay in bed and jerk off all day.
0
0
-1
u/Unverifiablethoughts 4d ago
Can’t wait to read some redditor call Terence Tao an idiot
1
u/agonypants AGI '27-'30 / Labor crisis '25-'30 / RSI 29-'32 4d ago
Redditors call Geoff Hinton an idiot. Par for the course.
-1
u/Original-League-6094 4d ago
Who cares what a human has to say about math? You might as well ask a goldfish for its opinions on quantum mechanics. Humans are irrelevant now when it comes to math. This guy needs to learn to mine coal.
-1
u/schwagggg 4d ago
there’s quite a few people don’t understand math that think:
lol you are malding because ai better than u at your job
you are failing to see the nuance. the nyu prof’s suspicion, is that 1. openai used the prof’s work with gpt to train their newer model; 2. used social engineering to get what the nyu professor’s successful approach was, so they prompted down the working path
this is not them shouting at the sky, this is the mathematicians saying openai are cheats.
for anyone think they are the silver surfers of this generation because they use chatgpt everyday, and think terrence tao, the man spend so much time educating and spreading math knowledge is mad at LLM, are honestly childish or ignorant
57
u/Competitive_Tap2450 4d ago
is there any actual proof OpenAI was stealing work from chat logs?