>and we ask them to stop testing advanced mathematical problems on proprietary models.
Being able to move the frontier of maths as fast as possible goes against this. Seeing where the latest models can take us is a positive thing. It seems the desire is to make it possible for someone outside the lab able to write a prompt to get "credit" for it. This is a selfish way of thinking. Prioritizing the discoverer over the math itself.
>AI labs that release substantial mathematical output without immediate accompanying human understanding must take responsibility for ensuring that human understanding will follow. In particular, AI labs should provide significant support, including funding, to help develop this understanding.
This is just reads like asking for a handout. Beyond a Lean proof I don't think they are obligated for providing any more interoperability of it. You can already manually go through all the lean statements by hand if you want. Considering how powerful AI proofs are the value of "human understanding" does not seem to be that high. It seems much more valuable to improve AI's understanding of math than humans.
>The use of proprietary internal models by AI labs to do mathematical research risks creating a two-tier system where labs outrun the rest of the field, effectively alienating the mathematical community from its own discipline.
In such a world it may be worth funding another AI lab who would be willing to sell you access to a powerful model for mathematics. Just because mathematics did frontier math in the past, that doesn't mean they are entitled to be at the frontier forever. I would rather advocate for open (to the public) models based off the fact that it allows society to tackle more problems from more angles speeding up the progress of math over than trying to make it about enshrining the previous of class of people into the frontier forever.
>As for publicly available models, unequal access due to economic and other factors risks establishing a multi-tier hierarchy across the mathematical world and greatly exacerbating existing inequalities that arise from institutional wealth and technological privilege.
We should not slow the progress of Mathematics down because that might cause inequality. The speed of results coming out should be the number 1 priority here.
charcircuit · · focus · HN ↗
Being able to move the frontier of maths as fast as possible goes against this. Seeing where the latest models can take us is a positive thing. It seems the desire is to make it possible for someone outside the lab able to write a prompt to get "credit" for it. This is a selfish way of thinking. Prioritizing the discoverer over the math itself.
>AI labs that release substantial mathematical output without immediate accompanying human understanding must take responsibility for ensuring that human understanding will follow. In particular, AI labs should provide significant support, including funding, to help develop this understanding.
This is just reads like asking for a handout. Beyond a Lean proof I don't think they are obligated for providing any more interoperability of it. You can already manually go through all the lean statements by hand if you want. Considering how powerful AI proofs are the value of "human understanding" does not seem to be that high. It seems much more valuable to improve AI's understanding of math than humans.
>The use of proprietary internal models by AI labs to do mathematical research risks creating a two-tier system where labs outrun the rest of the field, effectively alienating the mathematical community from its own discipline.
In such a world it may be worth funding another AI lab who would be willing to sell you access to a powerful model for mathematics. Just because mathematics did frontier math in the past, that doesn't mean they are entitled to be at the frontier forever. I would rather advocate for open (to the public) models based off the fact that it allows society to tackle more problems from more angles speeding up the progress of math over than trying to make it about enshrining the previous of class of people into the frontier forever.
>As for publicly available models, unequal access due to economic and other factors risks establishing a multi-tier hierarchy across the mathematical world and greatly exacerbating existing inequalities that arise from institutional wealth and technological privilege.
We should not slow the progress of Mathematics down because that might cause inequality. The speed of results coming out should be the number 1 priority here.