> get something that helps us understand what is going on, and live to see a better future.
Nah, I don't really buy the sales pitch that ultra advanced math will give us a better future. For decades we've had ultra advanced math already before AI like geometric langlands, higher topos theory, and Waldhausen categories and it's done nothing to give us a better future.
Maybe it helps to train people to think abstractly and inspire technical people through the beauty of math but that's only when it was a human endeavor anyway.
The idea of going to even more layers of abstraction and complexity with AI may be possible but it's just a mental game at that point and isn't going to help anyone. It will just waste energy.
As far as I'm concerned (as a former mathematician), they can take their new discoveries and shove it. Yes, science does help us live easier lives in some way but it doesn't follow that endless new discoveries always been better lives past a certain point. And I think this is a prime example of that.
If a prompt can solve a useful math proof, then someone else will find that prompt. In which case, openAI won't get the street cred(wall street) it needs. Nobody is hiding secrets to gain advantage in this environment.
OpenAI cracked these frontier math proofs using models and amount of compute not available to general public. It's not the case that anyone can put "solve Navier–Stokes" in ChatGPT and get solution. Although less well-known problems can be solved with publicly available models.
Indeed. Their model they showed off that was ~5x better than 6 Astra in certain domains including mathematics is not public and I doubt they'd release it. They distill their internal large into their public models.
I think it depends on the situation. If there are profitable applications, they might keep the proof to themselves, but I agree with you in most cases.
My assumption on cryptography was that any published result could potentially help had actors, was unlikely to help good actors, and better to stay away completely. Can definitely see why they'd research but not publish in the other areas though.
Remember, Trump has said if you don't use SI instead of AI you are an enemy. So, this title should be changed to "The math that OpenSI keeps for itself."
> get something that helps us understand what is going on, and live to see a better future.
Nah, I don't really buy the sales pitch that ultra advanced math will give us a better future. For decades we've had ultra advanced math already before AI like geometric langlands, higher topos theory, and Waldhausen categories and it's done nothing to give us a better future.
Maybe it helps to train people to think abstractly and inspire technical people through the beauty of math but that's only when it was a human endeavor anyway.
The idea of going to even more layers of abstraction and complexity with AI may be possible but it's just a mental game at that point and isn't going to help anyone. It will just waste energy.
As far as I'm concerned (as a former mathematician), they can take their new discoveries and shove it. Yes, science does help us live easier lives in some way but it doesn't follow that endless new discoveries always been better lives past a certain point. And I think this is a prime example of that.
If a prompt can solve a useful math proof, then someone else will find that prompt. In which case, openAI won't get the street cred(wall street) it needs. Nobody is hiding secrets to gain advantage in this environment.
OpenAI cracked these frontier math proofs using models and amount of compute not available to general public. It's not the case that anyone can put "solve Navier–Stokes" in ChatGPT and get solution. Although less well-known problems can be solved with publicly available models.
Indeed. Their model they showed off that was ~5x better than 6 Astra in certain domains including mathematics is not public and I doubt they'd release it. They distill their internal large into their public models.
I think it depends on the situation. If there are profitable applications, they might keep the proof to themselves, but I agree with you in most cases.
My assumption on cryptography was that any published result could potentially help had actors, was unlikely to help good actors, and better to stay away completely. Can definitely see why they'd research but not publish in the other areas though.
Remember, Trump has said if you don't use SI instead of AI you are an enemy. So, this title should be changed to "The math that OpenSI keeps for itself."
Maybe it is just me, but what annoys me even more than the AI-slop texts is the uniform Claude, ripoff visual designs everywhere.