Rendered at 19:34:11 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
mwkaufma 12 minutes ago [-]
"Advisory Group"
Importantly, the group will not be responsible for advising us on how to pace our internal progress on mathematics.
kingstnap 37 minutes ago [-]
There are three big things in this announcement it seems.
> In addition to resolving the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize problem , this model has now resolved more than 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics.
Rumor was they were sitting on the solution to the Hodge conjecture. I wonder if thats one of these.
> The group will advise on the review and communication of emerging results.
With hundreds of results, and the seeming exponential vertical from earlier in summer (10 major results from Astra, now hundreds...) I do wonder how exactly such a group decides to disseminate results. If it will instantly bottleneck. I mean I checked their site and it seems to be a google form asking for opinions.
> Importantly, the group will not be responsible for advising us on how to pace our internal progress on mathematics.
Spicy. I think the super intelligence benchmark for me is P vs NP. That one I know is proper hard and feel it in my bones.
In related notes I watched a panel of mathematicians discuss AI recently on YouTubes. Specifically the hlf26 one. [0]. I also watched Terrence Taos recent one on SAIR [1]. In addition to a few others like Tom Rocks and Martin Hairer [2]. Whats abundantly clear is that no one has any answers to what this means for the future of mathematics. They all waffle about what anyone is going to be doing in a few years.
It's funny coz this was what humans were supposed to be doing in techno-utopia, while AI does all the boring stuff. I don't think many predicted art and theoretical math would be first to fall to the machines.
The next few years are gonna be very rough for the human exceptionalism crowd.
kenjackson 16 minutes ago [-]
In fairness this is the boring stuff for a lot of people. :-)
anothermathbozo 6 minutes ago [-]
> internal progress on mathematics
This alone feels like a horrible new paradigm
1242asZ 53 minutes ago [-]
Like in Yes Minister, when they from a committee for a "full investigation". Gowers is on it, of course.
26 minutes ago [-]
robotpepi 30 minutes ago [-]
It feels like publicity stunt. Of they really care about research, they would at least have given more reasonable citations in the Navier-Stokes paper.
25 minutes ago [-]
gaigalas 7 minutes ago [-]
What I predicted 9 months ago came to pass:
> "a scenario in which a large automated proof is achieved but there would be no practical means of getting any understanding of what it means"
That is precisely the concern of mathematicians (getting proof without getting the knowledge to humanity):
> But solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. Forgetting this in the world of AI may turn the tool against the primary goal. Indeed, the mass production at faster and faster pace of "true/false" statements could destroy fertile ground instead of breathing life into new ideas.
I predict it's only going to get worse. So far, in software, all AI companies push for results that you don't necessarily need to understand (don't look at the code). I don't see any reason why they would change that posture for math.
"Your advice for making AI-obtained proof are sensible, but AI has progressed too much and I'm afraid you're obsolete and all math is now a compiler target and not an actual craft", is what I predict based on the exact same thing happening to software recently.
> This group came together after OpenAI approached some of its members about establishing an external advisory board. In agreement with OpenAI, they decided to create an independent group and invite others to join.
More like these are the people who didn't refuse
29 minutes ago [-]
OtherShrezzing 59 minutes ago [-]
Advisory groups, especially ones stacked with prominent individuals, are where concepts go to die. They’re taken straight from the financial services playbook. Anyone remember all those climate/finance advisory groups from 2020/21? They’re all defunct now, having achieved nothing.
8 minutes ago [-]
laichzeit0 49 minutes ago [-]
I don’t think Chinese models care one iota about any of these advisory groups. Even if they’re one year behind the curve, a year or two is a piss drop in the grand scheme of things.
marsven_422 12 minutes ago [-]
[dead]
franticgecko3 59 minutes ago [-]
The first field field has fallen to AI.
I wasn't convinced until the mathematics community started responding, openly, with severe distress.
What will be next?
57 minutes ago [-]
jfewhfuehg 32 minutes ago [-]
What if I told you that... Most math research was useless anyway. AI is going to expose a lot of grift.
dgellow 7 minutes ago [-]
There is not a lot of money in maths… what grift are you talking about?
esafak 27 minutes ago [-]
Mathematicians never claimed that it was useful. It is up to you to find a use for it.
> In addition to resolving the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize problem , this model has now resolved more than 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics.
Rumor was they were sitting on the solution to the Hodge conjecture. I wonder if thats one of these.
> The group will advise on the review and communication of emerging results.
With hundreds of results, and the seeming exponential vertical from earlier in summer (10 major results from Astra, now hundreds...) I do wonder how exactly such a group decides to disseminate results. If it will instantly bottleneck. I mean I checked their site and it seems to be a google form asking for opinions.
> Importantly, the group will not be responsible for advising us on how to pace our internal progress on mathematics.
Spicy. I think the super intelligence benchmark for me is P vs NP. That one I know is proper hard and feel it in my bones.
In related notes I watched a panel of mathematicians discuss AI recently on YouTubes. Specifically the hlf26 one. [0]. I also watched Terrence Taos recent one on SAIR [1]. In addition to a few others like Tom Rocks and Martin Hairer [2]. Whats abundantly clear is that no one has any answers to what this means for the future of mathematics. They all waffle about what anyone is going to be doing in a few years.
[0] https://youtu.be/H7_d_sgui6o
[1] https://youtu.be/PZRb6NIki2w
[2] https://youtu.be/G8HMa_tgM34
The next few years are gonna be very rough for the human exceptionalism crowd.
This alone feels like a horrible new paradigm
> "a scenario in which a large automated proof is achieved but there would be no practical means of getting any understanding of what it means"
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46284897#46286785
That is precisely the concern of mathematicians (getting proof without getting the knowledge to humanity):
> But solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. Forgetting this in the world of AI may turn the tool against the primary goal. Indeed, the mass production at faster and faster pace of "true/false" statements could destroy fertile ground instead of breathing life into new ideas.
I predict it's only going to get worse. So far, in software, all AI companies push for results that you don't necessarily need to understand (don't look at the code). I don't see any reason why they would change that posture for math.
"Your advice for making AI-obtained proof are sensible, but AI has progressed too much and I'm afraid you're obsolete and all math is now a compiler target and not an actual craft", is what I predict based on the exact same thing happening to software recently.
More like these are the people who didn't refuse
I wasn't convinced until the mathematics community started responding, openly, with severe distress.
What will be next?