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.
Am I the odd one, or is this, like... absolutely insane logic?
"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."
Are mathematicians' private brains unfair if they're way better at solving open math problems than anyone else? Are they required to share everything they're working on, as they're working on it?
Should Andrew Wiles have been condemned? Wouldn't these arguments all have applied to him? Besides him working at more human speeds.
It's not insane when you realize that in mathematics, the goal isn't theorems (we have always been able to generate correct theorems, this is a basic programming exercise).
The goal is to expand and extend our understanding.
When an LLM produces a proof, nobody (including the LLM) gained new understanding ... Unless, of course, a human being sits down and understands it, and communicates the new understanding to the broader community.
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.
meowface · · focus · HN ↗
"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."
Are mathematicians' private brains unfair if they're way better at solving open math problems than anyone else? Are they required to share everything they're working on, as they're working on it?
Should Andrew Wiles have been condemned? Wouldn't these arguments all have applied to him? Besides him working at more human speeds.
emil-lp · · focus · HN ↗
The goal is to expand and extend our understanding.
When an LLM produces a proof, nobody (including the LLM) gained new understanding ... Unless, of course, a human being sits down and understands it, and communicates the new understanding to the broader community.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]