There’s a paywall. All that I can say is that some models are capable of proving theorems via theorem provers like Lean4, which validates proofs without requiring human feedback. The issue is real and it is a bit of an existential problems to how mathematics will evolve.
I’d say that even with the field potentially getting completely automated in the future, I would still find joy in doing it as much as someone would enjoy playing chess even though a machine can do it much better.
We don’t have to compete with the machines.
The problem is, the billionaires are very much in favor of machines competing vs the humans for employment.
It’s one of those situations where even if you don’t care about competition with the machines, the system you depend on cares about it. It’s like if you don’t care about politics but politics cares about you.
Yeah, we definitely need a proper restructuring of economic incentives. Rewarding this competition towards existential crises isn’t doing much good to humanity. I think people are in a desperate need for treating philosophical problems seriously.
Now, after release, here’s an example of the initial thoughts of someone who had spent time on one of the solved problems:
I think people really need to understand the “it just took a bunch of public work and connected the pieces” isn’t a gotcha for LLMs: it’s one of the sales pitches. The cross-discipline general knowledge combined with the ability to churn huge datasets to find connections across already-known work, and extrapolate to or derive novel findings, is exactly one mode of superhuman success that AI companies have been trying to achieve.
The bigger issue is that they may be camping human efforts then kill-stealing the last hit on the boss by burning millions of dollars to get a proof a few days/weeks/months earlier than when it would have happened without AI. Basically, waiting for problems to be all-but-formally solved, then beating the researchers to the punch; like the recent Millenium controversy
Making things very obscured is not a proof.
The guy is politely saying it’s nonsense
I don’t think that’s what’s being said. More like the complexities of the solution are taking a while to understand because it is a complex solution using complex math. Even the smartest people in their fields can’t always look at a solution and at a glance understand everything without truly digesting what they’re seeing.
That is not at all what he just said
it’s a pretty inconclusive statement , and can be interpreted.
Post here when he and others say it’s correct
Several employees within OpenAI believe their technology has rendered math dead anyway, according to people who have spoken with them.
They do believe a lot of things about their magic word machine.
Wait, it can finally count how many letters are in a word?
Reminds me of the Mechanicus in 40k. “We just worship the machine and it does what we want it to. How does it work? No one knows!”
TLDR:
Most of the “mathematical breakthroughs” from AI have been done by loading all available recent research from humans solving the problem, and then collating it while skipping reviews and telling the humans who did the work it would literally be “too complicated” to explain the AI didn’t actually do anything…
It’s all just lies to drive up stock prices, what they release appears to be stuff that would be released shortly anyways, it’s just being dumped at once 99% of the way done before it’s verified.
Doing 10%, or less, of the work and taking credit for it. Add this to the bucket for “Reasons AI can replace the C-suite”
I know people always say that, but there still needs to be executives so there’s still humans to be held accountable.
The vast amount of middle management are useless, but there has to be a human sitting in a chair above the chatbot for legal liability. Otherwise the board will just blame the chatbot for everything.
That also doesn’t mean they should be paid so much, just that a human needs to be above the chatbot as far as final authority
When was the last time a CEO or board member was held accountable? Or any time? Apart from that dude that caught a bullet.
Who is saying they shouldn’t be held accountable?
Like, it’s like you’re arguing we need to disband the fire department because we keep having house fires…
I said no such thing. They should be held accountable. They just never are.
Buddy…
I didn’t say you said they shouldn’t be held accountable…
I’m saying I wasn’t saying that, that no one was saying that…
But I don’t think trying to clarify any of this is gonna be productive
Of course that logic requires that executives actually be held accountable… for instance, due to illegal behavior on the part of their company…
Yes…
Holding people accountable, means we have to hold people accountable…
The solution to not holding people accountable, isn’t to make it harder to hold people accountable. The solution is actually holding the right people accountable.
I’m glad we can get on the same page
I mean, yeah, I’m not arguing with your conclusions, I just think you’re overly optimistic.
Nobody is talking about putting Altman in jail for violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, even though that’s exactly what should be happening. Instead they’ve got investors lining up around the block to buy a piece of it.
You seem a bit defensive though.
Nobody is talking about putting Altman in jail for violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act, even though that’s exactly what should be happening.
Republicans control the House, Senate, and Oval right now…
Do I really need to explain why they’re not doing anything?
You can’t figure that one out on you’re own?
I just think you’re overly optimistic
Midterms are in a month…
You seem a bit defensive though.
Because midterms are in a month, and a shit ton of people are pushing really hard that nothing can ever be done so it’s pointless to try.
Be a doomer after midterms and I won’t give a fuck. But right now trump and the AI techbros are spending a shit ton of money to convince the left not to vote.
Don’t do their work for them.
Who said anything about not voting?
With a structure like that the board would be the ones responsible for the AI output. Lol, I think your suggestion just means inserting a fall guy between the board and the ai
…
Saying we’ll hold the board responsible if chatbots get to run corporations is almost as ludacris of a prediction as billionaires saying they’ll support a socialist utopia if we let chatbots take everyone’s jobs…
Saying we’ll hold the board responsible if chatbots get to run corporations is almost as ludacris
I dig how you went with the rapper spelling.
The idea that CEOs would be held accountable for anything is just wishful thinking at this point.
The way modern models prove theorems is with the help of a proof assistant like lean. They provide solutions to unsolved problems, not ones that have already been solved.
In conversations with WIRED, the academics say they feel the field has become a playground for OpenAI and its rival Anthropic to show off their models as both prepare for blockbuster initial public offerings. In their rush to outdo each other, mathematicians say, traditional scientific processes for releasing and attributing results have been cast aside.
The most striking case so far came in September. OpenAI deployed thousands of agents to solve a legendary million-dollar Millennium Prize problem after hearing “rumors” that others were closing in on solutions. Tristan Buckmaster, a mathematician and professor at New York University, accused the company of front-running the work he had done toward solving an element of the problem in a personal collaboration with Anthropic employee Levent Alpöge. The pair hadn’t published their work but had been using OpenAI’s tools to help them.
Humans stole human work for their bots…
During an attempt to negotiate credit, Buckmaster claims, OpenAI researcher Sébastien Bubeck seemed to imply that Alpöge should be excluded from any paper, since that would make things complicated. (In response to a request for comment, Bubeck pointed to a previous public statement in which he denied asking for Alpöge to not be listed as an author.) Buckmaster said he refused. In a call, Bubeck claimed that there is some worry about what Anthropic is doing, according to meeting notes seen by WIRED. Levent must be talking to his leadership right now letting them know fucking OpenAI can get a Millennium Prize problem, he said, per the notes. What’s to stop Anthropic from giving all their compute to get a Millennium Prize problem?
The humans stole the credit from the other human to give it to chatbots…
According to the notes, Bubeck also seemed to suggest that Buckmaster would be ruining his career when Buckmaster threatened to tell the press about his belief that OpenAI had stolen his work. If you don’t want me to be nice, then I don’t have to be nice, Bubeck said, according to the meeting notes.
The humans at OpenAI threatened the human if he tried to claim credit.
But you really should read the full article
Yes, I am aware of this one. I’m talking about models specialized at theorem proving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mathematical_discoveries_by_artificial_intelligence
I’m talking about models specialized at theorem proving.
That’s not what the article is about or anyone is talking about…
They’re talking about something much worse and you’re ignoring it and trying to get everyone to talk about something else.
I don’t know why you’re doing, but I’m already doubting you’re going to stop. Either in this thread or any other place you want to shove an uninformed opinion about an unrelated topic.
As I said in another reply there’s a paywall, so I just joined in with what I already knew, and I don’t think it is that far off topic to be considered an “unrelated topic” as I’m still taking about AI proving theorems.
I don’t know why you’re doing
Humans like to join in conversations about a topic they like from time to time. It’s a social thing, you should try it.
about a topic they like from time to time.
That’s not what you did…
You saw a headline, and replied to a comment that provided a non paywall link…
Talking about something completely different than the article…
And got kind of upset when the person tried clarify that you weren’t talking about the article.
Maybe this will help:
Imagine you and your friends are talking about Pokemon, and I walked up and started talking about Yugioh, then yelled at you and all your friends when they didn’t want to talk about Yugioh with me and instead continued your existing conversation.
Hopefully that helps, I’ll never know. Because I have a feeling I’m not the first to try and you’ll do this again later.
You sure like gaslighting and taking with ellipsis. I didn’t notice the link you posed was different than the title of the main article. Also, I don’t see why your analogy portrays my side as “yelling at you”, I think you’re feeling too threatened over a mishap. Your initial comment made me think you were assuming no AI can prove solved theorems on its own, which is why I joined to correct, I just wasn’t expecting to get here.
Your understanding of what they did is not correct. But also fuck OpenAI I am not going to explain their bullshit for them. So anyway put Sam Altman in prison is all I am going to say.
If you really thought that, you could have just typed what you thought I was wrong about instead of a literally useless comment…
I do not want to appear like I want to defend them because I don’t.
Objectivity does not work with the average person. You will trigger people and will get downvoted. I understand what you mean, but… yeah, just don’t
If you skip peer review I don’t give a shit about what you planning"publish."
I’m not vetting your bullshit when I write.
Hinestly, AI can be a great tool to further evolve mathematics,but you still have to understand every gory detail it did to solve the problem. If you can’t do that, it’s not solved.
Also all ML models have some accuracy less than 100%, that means you can’t trust it. The whole point in the proof is perfection
The proofs are written in Lean so, like in all mathematics, you don’t have to trust the person because you can independently verify the proof.
deleted by creator
If the proofs hold, then they hold.
Unfortunately, just because a proof holds doesn’t mean the problem is solved. It just means that the proof proofs. The proof can still be utter nonsense if it isn’t structured properly and actually modeling the right thing. Moreover, even if it is a real proof, that doesn’t actually do anything for us until we understand it.
Spot on, this is the thing people often miss out.
These problems aren’t actual problems in the way most people think about. They are problems in the way that they are exercises. Like the Navier Stokes problem is reporting in the news like one of the biggest problems in maths ever. Leading people to think we are stuck on it and can’t progress in some way without a solution. But in reality the limitations of the equation are well known and don’t impact normal every day use. And in cases where they would, we have other tools at our disposal.
The goal of these problems is to challenge mathematical people and push boundaries. Having a proof pop out of nowhere is like having someone tell you the answer to a question, where the whole goal was to formulate the answer yourself. The answer itself is meaningless, that’s why you get 0 points on the exam unless you show the workings out. It’s like having a movie spoiled for you, the goal wasn’t to know the outcome, the goal was the experience the story yourself.
Working backwards from some proof might lead to insights, but it also might not and be harder than working forwards. It also might pick a certain path, where there were multiple and we would be blind to the other paths. Those other paths might lead to more insights, if we had explored them.
The way OpenAI specifically has approached this is also very weird and awful in my opinion. Like they set their sights on yet again ruining some aspect of the world with AI and then throwing billions of dollars at it to make sure it’s properly ruined. For what purpose exactly? Not to make any money, that’s for sure, they are 2 trillion in the hole and counting.
It pains me to say this, but we are in the midst of a revolution…
deleted by creator
