I think the answer to this is simple: Mathematicians don’t own math. Math is a tool to do useful things. I don’t want this gatekept by people who have a sense of entitlement. And luckily enough, they don’t have any leverage, so the appropriate response is to say no.
Math is not merely a tool. The question isn't one of doing the math, it's about publication and release of work. Humans have to follow certain rules, so why should we allow AI labs to behave differently?
Absolutely not. Otherwise, if I prove something original, and it is correct and replicable, this would mean I can publish in Annals of Mathematics. Now if we narrow that to publishing somewhere, then sure, but that's irrelevant. This is about values for prominent results (e.g. Annals) for mathematicians.
This was my point though. Not sure why you are disagreeing? The original argument was that there was no criteria for publication other than replication, or that is how I read it. I was refuting that.
Perelman was already working on an interesting problem, and wrote in ways that were less formal, but still academically sound, so of course he did not need to publish it. What about the people working on problems that are not interesting? You don't think they encounter significant difficulties getting their work out there?
Chance-Device · · focus · HN ↗
hodgehog11 · · focus · HN ↗
AndrewKemendo · · focus · HN ↗
hodgehog11 · · focus · HN ↗
AndrewKemendo · · focus · HN ↗
Perelman had no publications in annals and didn’t even publish in English or provide every possible proof yet he blew open two fields.
Your claim is does not stand to even the barest scrutiny
hodgehog11 · · focus · HN ↗
Perelman was already working on an interesting problem, and wrote in ways that were less formal, but still academically sound, so of course he did not need to publish it. What about the people working on problems that are not interesting? You don't think they encounter significant difficulties getting their work out there?