Mostly pretty straight forward. The idea that proofs be desloppified, attribute existing literature properly, and published somewhere expediently where it can be commented on, with artifacts for verification, is all very uncontroversial stuff.
I think the spicy take is definitely this stance that longstanding mathematical problems shouldn't be used as benchmarks for (specifically proprietary) models. Stated right at the very top.
The justification is pretty clear.
> 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.
It is all fun and games (for non mathematicians) when mathematicians can't compete with AI labs but I think the more dangerous direction is when this starts being true for the rest of everything. For example cybersecurity or whatnot. Hence why I think Anthropics whole stance of being completely against open anything is actually *extremely* dangerous due to the centralization of power which they completely ignore as a risk factor.
The most discussable thing in this is certainly the idea that labs should fund mathematicians to do expositions.
> One of our principles is that AI labs have a responsibility to provide support, including funding, for the development of human understanding of the AI mathematical output that they release.
Obviously this directionally sounds like the role of mathematicians would be shifting towards interpreting AI results instead of making proofs. I'm not sure who would should really be billed for that. Plus how would you decide who gets the grant?
An interesting thing is that by stating that that the lab that dropped the result provide the funding, this is *directly* proposing an example of taxing AI labs for displacing knowledge workers.
> 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
This is literally the economic bet of the big labs in the broader economy. You use your relative advantage to front run or outcompete.
I'm not sure this argument will work given it is essentially an argument against the thesis the big labs use to justify their valuations.
Right, the whole idea of these labs is to install themselves as capitalist philosopher kings. They won't tolerate any ideas of "decentralization" despite it benefiting 99% of humans.
OpenAI was started because Elon and Sam thought Demis was going to make himself dictator and they wanted a piece of that action (reading between the lines). All the labs, even Anthropic have the same idea dressed in different marketing gloss. The major exception (I imagine) are Chinese labs, since the Communist Party of China will demand control over these labs and their models. Good! Democratic human control is a good thing. Certainly, there is more democracy in China than in America. That's the idea of socialism, democracy for the workers, not for the capitalists (we do the inverse).
You end with some pretty far fetched claims there. Control by an authoritarian government is no democracy. I am sure that the people running AI companies will claim they intend to do it for the good of society, just as the Chinese government already does.
kingstnap · · focus · HN ↗
I think the spicy take is definitely this stance that longstanding mathematical problems shouldn't be used as benchmarks for (specifically proprietary) models. Stated right at the very top.
The justification is pretty clear.
> 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.
It is all fun and games (for non mathematicians) when mathematicians can't compete with AI labs but I think the more dangerous direction is when this starts being true for the rest of everything. For example cybersecurity or whatnot. Hence why I think Anthropics whole stance of being completely against open anything is actually *extremely* dangerous due to the centralization of power which they completely ignore as a risk factor.
The most discussable thing in this is certainly the idea that labs should fund mathematicians to do expositions.
> One of our principles is that AI labs have a responsibility to provide support, including funding, for the development of human understanding of the AI mathematical output that they release.
Obviously this directionally sounds like the role of mathematicians would be shifting towards interpreting AI results instead of making proofs. I'm not sure who would should really be billed for that. Plus how would you decide who gets the grant?
An interesting thing is that by stating that that the lab that dropped the result provide the funding, this is *directly* proposing an example of taxing AI labs for displacing knowledge workers.
BobbyJo · · focus · HN ↗
This is literally the economic bet of the big labs in the broader economy. You use your relative advantage to front run or outcompete.
I'm not sure this argument will work given it is essentially an argument against the thesis the big labs use to justify their valuations.
tehjoker · · focus · HN ↗
OpenAI was started because Elon and Sam thought Demis was going to make himself dictator and they wanted a piece of that action (reading between the lines). All the labs, even Anthropic have the same idea dressed in different marketing gloss. The major exception (I imagine) are Chinese labs, since the Communist Party of China will demand control over these labs and their models. Good! Democratic human control is a good thing. Certainly, there is more democracy in China than in America. That's the idea of socialism, democracy for the workers, not for the capitalists (we do the inverse).
graemep · · focus · HN ↗