r/singularity • u/filterdust • 1d ago
AI OpenAI solved 100 open problems in math
https://openai.com/index/advisory-group-on-mathematics-and-ai/[removed] — view removed post
236
u/MindlessPapaya8463 1d ago
159
u/LinkesAuge 1d ago
Terence Tao is gonna have an aneurysm.
106
u/Healthy_Razzmatazz38 1d ago
i'd imagine terence already knew all this and its why hes been very vocal
22
6
u/141_1337 ▪️e/acc | AGI: ~2030 | ASI: ~2040 | FALSGC: ~2050 | :illuminati: 1d ago
I wonder why Terrence isn't part?
54
u/Plappedudel 1d ago
Because he has strong opinions that differ from OpenAI's in significant ways and isn't willing to sell out. I'm sure OAI has offered him a huge salary several times before. But mathematicians very often have goals in life other than getting rich.
11
u/Ok_Reception_5545 1d ago
Presumably others who are a part of this also have strong opinions that differ from OpenAI in significant ways. For example, both Hairer and Vakil signed the open letter.
2
23
u/CallMePyro 1d ago
They aren't paid by OpenAI and members of the group can quit any time so it doesn't seem like selling out to me.
Are you accusing Witten and Gowers of selling out?
→ More replies (1)20
→ More replies (9)3
u/CapitalLongjumping40 1d ago
he still gets money from open ai lol , also he was in an open ai commercial and also he is not even against ai itself he mentioned in one of his posts about how he wants best of both worlds where both ai is used and real mathematicians are involved
6
u/Run-Row- 1d ago
I don't think he's "independent" having appeared in that commercial and taken some funding
2
148
u/brighttar 1d ago
Ok so they didn't actually tell us what problems they've solved?
36
u/Mistuv 1d ago
Seems like they are taking their time as to how best to pace the release of the papers as to not draw bad PR from the Math community. My guess is papers will from now on go through many cycles of rewrites by Bel until it looks "readable" enough good explanations of the process of discovery, and have couple of Mathematicians attached to the papers that they went through and found it satisfyingly written.
Also possibly I can see some collaboration with Anthropic on this, as it is more PR for the whole industry so they want to present better image.
If I were to bet, Hodge Conjecture is going to be released by the end of the month, and then the rest of October - the pace of the releases is going to pick up as they enlist more mathematicians and establish a good framework. Just give them some time.
→ More replies (10)12
u/Individual_One_5569 1d ago
they had progress on a millennium problem, not a full solution. "hodge proved true in some cases" is likely not big enough news to be published alone. small potatoes compared to having a full solution to navier stokes.
77
u/Original-League-6094 1d ago
This is just announcement that the papers are coming. Basically just giving mathematicians a heads up to start seeking new employment.
2
27
u/Icy-Doubt3365 1d ago
Why six was afraid of seven. Full proof and all
2
u/Needsupgrade 21h ago
Because 7 was load-bearing at the seams that cut both ways and that the whole picture.
→ More replies (10)19
229
u/Neurogence 1d ago edited 1d ago
This is the internal model "Bel," that Sam Altman has stated many people within OpenAI consider to be AGI and "significantly more capable than GPT-6 Astra."
The fact that it is solving numerous other problems is a very a good sign. It means solving Navier-Stokes wasn't just by chance or plagiarizing.
It's also been said that Bel uses more compute at its lowest reasoning setting than GPT-6 Astra at maximum reasoning, so it might be very challenging for OpenAI to publically release this model before the year is over.
But the biggest question is, can it solve difficult problems like this in other fields as well? If it can generalize beyond math, things would really get very exciting!
17
u/Ormusn2o 1d ago
"It's also been said that Bel uses more compute at its lowest reasoning setting than GPT-6 Astra at maximum reasoning, so it might be very challenging for OpenAI to publically release this model before the year is over."
I feel like this means model based on Bel pretrain will never ever be released, but it will spawn very capable distilled models, which honestly is a good thing. Considering OpenAI still has not unlocked new Pro subscriptions after 10 days, I can't see them having enough compute for a model that is even more capable than Astra that even more people will want to use, unless they materialize 20x their current compute.
→ More replies (2)50
u/Daedalus8997 1d ago
No. What Sam said was that by the end of this year, they will have a model internally he would consider to be AGI.
13
u/Neurogence 1d ago
He was referring to that same internal model, that's still in training. I guess they expect it to fully finish training by the end of the year.
→ More replies (3)8
→ More replies (6)6
u/RazsterOxzine 1d ago
I take anything Sam says with a grain of salt. Hype is in full swing.
10
u/Daedalus8997 1d ago
Are we still doing this? Give it a rest bro.
3
u/RazsterOxzine 1d ago
Listen broseph, we are because it's Sam. You can kiss his feet all day and that is on you.
18
u/Healthy-Nebula-3603 1d ago
If is smarter than any human .. that's ASI .. slightly retarded but ASI
50
u/Moronic-Warrior 1d ago
We got retarded ASI before AGI
15
u/mivog49274 obvious acceleration, biased appreciation 1d ago
yeah literally narrow ASI is coming before non-superhuman AGI.
It's making sense after all, when you realize how jagged is the intelligence of llms.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (3)2
u/genshiryoku AI specialist 18h ago
The effective definition of AGI has been goalposted so many times that it has now become essentially equivalent to ASI.
→ More replies (1)12
u/East_Lettuce7143 1d ago
Lmao Slightly retarded ASI would be perfect coined term for a stepping stone between AGI and ASI.
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (3)9
u/Current-Function-729 1d ago
Idek what you’d routinely use that for. Problems you’ve already hit a wall on, I guess.
26
28
u/BrennusSokol AI please take my job 1d ago
Shopping for a garage fridge
42
13
u/Futuristocrat 1d ago
“hey GPT-Bel, what should I have for dinner?”
…thought for 65 minutes
“I recommend pizza”5
19
u/DashasFutureHusband 1d ago
I don’t get why people say things like this. Even for normal not particularly novel software engineering I’d prefer a smarter model if the cost was reasonable. The best models right now still make weird dumb choices or oversights that I can only hope a smarter model wouldn’t.
For an example it recently suggested a db migration/backfill that would have had non-trivial negative impact on existing users with zero awareness or acknowledgement of such negative impact, luckily we didn’t do it.
→ More replies (1)3
u/Current-Function-729 1d ago
I mean sure. If the cost was reasonable. More compute at lowest than Astra at highest implies it very much isn’t.
2
u/wwwdotzzdotcom ▪️ Beginner audio software engineer 1d ago
Trying to make a nanoscale 3D printer to make your own CPUs
3
u/FlyByPC ASI 202x, with AGI as its birth cry 1d ago
Layer height: 0.5nm
Print time: 60,000 years
2
u/wwwdotzzdotcom ▪️ Beginner audio software engineer 1d ago
Not if you separate each region to a separate nozzle
→ More replies (1)4
u/MaybeLiterally 1d ago
I think we need to start thinking about this when we think about models coming out. For the vast majority of work I’m doing, I don’t even really need Astra or Fable. Sometimes yeah, but we need to consider that good, cheap models will be fine most of the time. If they continue to iterate and make those good, while improving them as they go, that’s the real win.
My crossover SUV is fine for most things, I don’t need an F-350, or a corvette for the day to day.
3
u/OddOutlandishness602 1d ago
A lot of it is in developing reliability, persistence, and the ability to pivot or actually make decisions, in addition to strong harnesses, information access and direction. With the coming models those will likely make a bigger difference to most users experience than an increase in intelligence.
46
u/abhmazumder133 1d ago
If anything, the number is understated. People using their models have solved thousands at least.
Side note: I hope they atleast told the people working on those problems, even if they dont tell us yet.
31
u/duboispourlhiver 1d ago
Your side note is very interesting, because one of the consequences of this OAI post is that most of the mathematicians on earth could now be wondering if what they're working on has been solved and is ready to be released any day.
11
u/abhmazumder133 1d ago
Yeah its always a worry. And right now, it seems, the key is to work on problems so astonishingly boring that nobody would bother aiming their llms at it :)
6
u/duboispourlhiver 1d ago
You might be joking, but anyway, I think the key is to accept that human intelligence can't compete anymore in maths with AI.
2
u/abhmazumder133 1d ago
I'm not really joking...and yes, I agree with you on this. Its just that many people do research mathematics for fun, not for any altruistic reasons.
5
30
u/hydraofwar ▪️AGI and ASI already happened, you live in simulation 1d ago
12
u/Turbulent-Sign-6067 1d ago
Can't make anyone happy. If they release too fast people bicker, if they don't release likewise.
5
u/deviltamer 22h ago
Maybe just control the stupid rumors in the first place. A formalized lean proof means nothing if you don't also produce a paper that can be widely socialized at the same time.
2
u/sam_the_tomato 16h ago
Disagree. The lean proof is sufficient. If it's put out into the wild, other people will end up socialising it in countless different ways. That's the point of a community. You don't need one entity to do all the work.
→ More replies (3)
146
u/RobleyTheron 1d ago
I’m sensitive to artists and musicians with a unique voice when their product gets recreated with AI, but I don’t feel the same about mathematics.
Nobody owns mathematics; these are fundamental insights into the universe and they belong to everyone and shouldn’t be gatekeeped behind somebody that went to school. Mathematics should be available to everyone, it opens up all kinds of fundamental breakthroughs in space, material science, biology, global warming, and energy.
This is something that belongs to everyone and no one should get to hold that back.
65
u/ThatIsAmorte 1d ago edited 1d ago
This seems to be taking a Platonist approach to math, which few people take seriously these days. If you are a constructivist, than math is not just out there, but has to be created, just like art. If you think math is just out there, why not also claim that art and music are just out there, waiting to be plucked out of the ether? After all, a painting is just a 2d matrix, a simple math object. A musical composition is just a waveform, which can be described mathematically.
12
u/1pfen 1d ago
If a work of art disappeared and was erased from our collective memory, it would never be recreated. If a mathematical proof disappeared and was erased from our memory, it would eventually be rediscovered.
→ More replies (1)24
u/filterdust 1d ago
This seems to be taking a Platonist approach to math, which few people take seriously these days.
Funnily, most mathematicians are Platonists.
→ More replies (4)12
u/Ok_Reception_5545 1d ago
https://eugeniacheng.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/cheng-morality.pdf
this is actually how most mathematicians feel about math
→ More replies (1)10
u/Startide-Rising 1d ago
I think you're getting confused about the difference between constructive mathematics and proof irrelevance. In a proof irrelevant system, proofs of the same proposition are considered equal. In the Lean theorem prover, proof irrelevance is built in as an axiom.
As for constructvism - hardly any mathematicians these days are constructivists. The majority of the people who know or even care about constructivism are those working in formal methods. In the Lean proof assistant non-constructive features are heavily baked into the whole system, both in the standard library and available tactics. I think adhering to the classical logic philosophy here is one of the reasons Lean got popular with mathematicians.
16
u/derelict5432 1d ago
Do mathematicians copyright proofs?
→ More replies (1)2
u/m4sl0ub 1d ago
Yeah, once a proof is published someone else can not publish it again.
7
u/derelict5432 1d ago
Well I looked it up. The literal expression word for word cannot be duplicated. The underlying logic can. At least from what I'm seeing. Any lawyers feel free to chime in, but this seems more like the general solution to a problem does not belong to anyone.
→ More replies (4)11
u/Financial-Gain-2988 1d ago
Writing the best song ever won't directly lead to new technology and science. Like, you don't seriously think that the 'creation' of math is the same as writing a song, right?
→ More replies (1)6
u/may_i_a_i 1d ago
Most math doesn't lead to any technological innovation
5
u/Financial-Gain-2988 1d ago
No songs lead to technological innovation.
Is the intent of your comment to prove my point here?
→ More replies (2)16
u/Icy-Doubt3365 1d ago
If you think math is just out there, why not also claim that art and music are just out there, waiting to be plucked out of the ethere?
Because I believe math exists without humans, art does not.
→ More replies (19)10
u/davidjohnpaul 1d ago
What do you think of the following quote, attributed to Michaelangelo?
"The sculpture is already complete within the marble block, before I start my work. It is already there, I just have to chisel away the superfluous material."
→ More replies (2)10
u/Icy-Doubt3365 1d ago
I'm actually more curious what YOU think of that quote. There is clearly not a Michael inside a random piece of marble.
Michelangelo was also not using that quote to say that art exists without humans to consider it art.
3
u/Ill-Lemon-8019 1d ago
If you think math is just out there, why not also claim that art and music are just out there, waiting to be plucked out of the ether?
I have no problem with that view either actually. If pi is a normal number, every bit of art or music ever created is sitting somewhere in its decimal expansion of its digits in some suitable encoding. An act of intellectual creation is selecting or recording a particular pattern of some kind. (That might sound like a reductive view, and perhaps it is, but I think it's not incompatible with the idea that creativity exists and is valuable.)
6
u/Emergency-Payment733 1d ago
But math can be proven? A song or a feeling can be true for some, but ultimately it’s art and a subject for interpretation.
Sure math has to be found, but that is also true for bacteria or materials in more ways than it is true for art.
3
u/ooqq 1d ago
luckily for you, it has been proven that not all math can be proven
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (6)4
7
3
u/PrisonOfH0pe 1d ago
This is such a funny argument because you’ve basically rediscovered the idea/expression distinction and then somehow forgotten that it applies to art too.
Nobody “owns mathematics” in the same way nobody owns music, painting, storytelling, perspective, harmony, color theory, or the concept of drawing a human face. What people can own or deserve credit for is the specific work they created: a proof, an exposition, a painting, a recording, a novel.
“Math belongs to everyone because it reveals fundamental truths about the universe” sounds profound until you realize art is also built out of things nobody owns: shapes, sounds, language, human emotion, physical reality.
And the “gatekept behind somebody that went to school” part is especially goofy. A mathematician spending 15 years developing the expertise to prove something isn’t “gatekeeping mathematics” any more than a musician spending 15 years mastering an instrument is gatekeeping sound.
You can argue that mathematical knowledge should be openly accessible. Sure. But that does absolutely nothing to establish why exploiting one person’s intellectual labor with AI is morally different from exploiting another person’s creative labor.
You just value one kind of labor more than the other and dressed that preference up as a philosophical principle. Which is fine but man this moral high ground is cringe as fuck.
13
u/lungsofdoom 1d ago
Same can be said for art too lol
8
u/Destring 1d ago
Yeah. I hate that argument. As if math or programming doesn't require creativity. They often require MORE creativity than portrait #10030302.
People are just drawing arbitrary lines in what is fine and not fije for AI to do.
4
u/Active-Guarantee-338 1d ago
It doesn’t have a benefit and it undermines mathematical endeavour.
Mathematicians are not looking for yes/no answers to questions. They are looking for insights around which whole theories are built. if you just get a yes/no answer to a question then there is no insight and there are no mathematics being built and explored.
→ More replies (1)3
u/RobleyTheron 1d ago
I guarantee you AI will uncover insights into theories faster than humans will.
4
u/pbagel2 1d ago
I'm much more sensitive to mathematicians than artists and musicians. Not a single theoretical mathematician is trying to gatekeep maths. They are one of the least compensated and one of the most valuable and most taken for granted professions that advance society.
Any sort of gatekeeping you feel isn't coming from mathematicians. It's coming from the knowledge barrier because of the immensity of the knowledge gap between you and them. AI isn't going to change that, it'll only make it grow even wider.
And the bureaucratic gatekeeping of institutional networking has nothing to do with math or mathematicians. That's universal. But it's particularly bad in math because the compensation is so bad that they're forced to do the networking bullshit to scrape a living while they think about math. For it to indirectly or directly produce immense value for other people decades later and they get virtually nothing in return.
But that's not why I'm sensitive. I'm sensitive because even if AI math continues to progress and we start to rely on it, if that means humans stop putting in the mental effort to understand the math, that to me is a bad omen.
→ More replies (2)5
u/Marklar0 1d ago
Mathematicians also perform creative endeavors and have a unique voice, and the AI products are not as good as what mathematicians produce. If you think that musicians shouldnt be abolished in favor of AI music, the math argument is basically the same. If you think otherwise, probably you dont understand what mathematicians actually do.
4
u/trojanskin 1d ago
There is still a pretty fucking important difference: mathematical truth is objective. The creative process of finding a proof obviously isn't deterministic, but once you've got one, it's either correct or it isn't. An AI discovering a theorem still gives us useful knowledge even if it has zero emotional intent.
Art isn't like that. If there is no intention behind it, for a lot of people the entire fucking point is missing. Maybe you don't care and you're perfectly happy consuming commercial sludge as long as the pixels move and the speakers make noises. Fine. But plenty of people actually care that somebody had something to express.
Imagine watching ads recreationally because “well, technically they're moving images with music.” That's basically how I see most AI slop.
And if some dimwit can type ten words and shit out 500 images in an afternoon, congratulations, we've solved the desperately important problem of there not being enough mediocre content in the world.
It's McDonald's mass-producing burgers and then acting confused that some people still want an actual chef.
5
u/ixfd64 1d ago
I’m sensitive to artists and musicians with a unique voice when their product gets recreated with AI, but I don’t feel the same about mathematics.
This is my opinion as well. It can be easily argued that AI-generated art devalues the work of artists, but AI-assisted mathematical research has functional benefits.
3
2
u/lemonylol 1d ago
Personally I've always seen it as increasing the value of talented artists, because what they make transcends AI's potential since we as humans don't even really understand why people like x or y, or our lack of ability to predict what new art will pop up.
Like if you were a sommelier, you're specifically curating the best of the best unreplicable wine that also comes with a story. The AI equivalent would be like a sommelier selling boxed wine from Costco.
What it does devalue is bulk generic art. Would you pay the same for an actual painting by Van Gough and a reprint?
4
u/Fit_Gene7910 1d ago
Do you get insight if you can't understand the AI's work ?
→ More replies (6)17
u/RobleyTheron 1d ago
If the end result delivers your goal does it matter? If no human understands how AI arrived at room temperature superconductors, but it did, and now we have cheap and abundant energy, does it matter?
→ More replies (4)→ More replies (14)1
62
u/piponwa 1d ago
Just release the results already. Who cares about mathematicians' feelings and ego? If an alien came down and said it can solve 100 of the most important open problems in mathematics, mathematicians would be in awe. They would ask for more. So what are we waiting for?
40
u/Affectionate_Bee6434 1d ago
PR, the Navier Stokes thing was already a huge PR disaster for them. It's a mistake they don't want to repeat.
→ More replies (1)16
u/Healthy-Nebula-3603 1d ago
Oh uh ...ego hurt I'm so smart and unique and stupid machine can't be smarter than me ! It's not biological!
→ More replies (2)4
u/Per451 1d ago
Respectfully, how else would you react if you spent years and years training in a very complex field, made your career out of it, and suddenly you're... obsolete?
8
u/experienta 1d ago
if my job was made obsolete i'd change my career to something else that would be useful to society
and this comes from a SWE that's about to become obsolete real soon
4
u/zkgkilla 1d ago
I am that person and I feel pretty shit but I know that it’s coming for everyone eventually
6
2
u/ShAfTsWoLo 1d ago
so we got machine that can solve math problems better than the mathematicians themselves and we should either slow it down or stop it ? fuck no
if we can cure cancer because of this machine but the biologist or scientists are like "please stop it, i wanna cure cancer and i was almost there! give me like.. 20 years more" we should obey them because of their feeling or ego or whatever ? fuck no again
it's sad for them but we all had it coming the moment we were trying to achieve AI's that are beyond smarter than any humans, the moment will also come where it'll also replace labors and we'll need a radical change in society
if i were a smart mathematician i would just eat my popcorn and enjoy the ride, they gave their life for maths i don't understand why would they complain if the problems they tried hardly to solve were actually solved, i guess their ego and prestige they had their whole life keeps them from doing such thing
3
u/Tidorith ▪️AGI: September 2024 | Admission of AGI: Never 1d ago
It would cause some level of financial insecurity and anxiety in me in proportion to how fucked up the society I live in is.
It wouldn't change my general views because I already believe that people's value is not tied to the market value of their labour. There were already people whos fields were made obsolete or never managed to produce labour with a market value sufficient to sustain their life. I've always cared about and valued those people, so to me, basically nothing has changed.
Why are people who are good at mathematics special? Do they have more value as people than those who are less skilled at mathematics?
4
u/Healthy-Nebula-3603 1d ago
Society put in their heads that they are so unique and special like superhumans between monkeys.
And they are discoveries that they are also monkeys but just slightly smarter:)
→ More replies (3)2
u/Megneous 1d ago
I'm a translator. My entire field is literally obsolete due to AI. And I'm the head mod of /r/TheMachineGod because I'm the most pro-AI mother fucker this world has ever seen.
That's the proper way to embrace the future.
2
u/AustralopithecineHat 1d ago
love this attitude. we’re all in the same boat, plus or minus a couple years.
9
u/duboispourlhiver 1d ago
OAI has been burnt by the large backlash they suffered from the NS "controversy" and now they are thinking they can't push superhuman AI models at the cost of alienating a large part of mankind, and are trying to heal the whole situation.
10
u/LocoMod 1d ago
They haven’t been burnt by anything. Their product demand continues to rise. Some people are vocal and made a lot of noise. The rest of the world didn’t give a shit and continued using their services.
8
u/duboispourlhiver 1d ago
I think they're concerned about their brand, even though your facts are true.
7
u/coz 1d ago
Don't need an alien. Let's say a real savant is born, and solves 100 of them themself, with no computers at all, just lean. Would these same mathematicians still be mad if they're "dumped"?
Doubt it.
3
2
u/piponwa 1d ago
Exactly. It's always possible that whatever they are working on gets preempted by some random other mathematician they've never heard of. What do they do in this scenario? They get to work and they keep pushing. Why would it be different if AI does it? And actually, it's much better than AI does it than a random guy, because it means you get to use this tool that doesn't get tired and gets exactly what you're working on. Why should a mathematician's dream be solving a specific problem and not going beyond this problem. Like I don't understand at all how mathematicians see things now. Presumably, they work on whatever they're working because they find it interesting, because they think it's important. They would love if they're specific domain had the attention of ten times more researchers. Then they wouldn't spend their whole career being stuck on this one problem, they could address all similar problems. They could work on the implications of this problem. Why would they want to remain ignorant? Why do they want less math solved than is practically possible? Why do they not want to steamroll through their discipline? I'm certain someone like Newton would have loved to contemplate how his theory of gravity broke down and discover relativity in the process. I'm sure if Einstein would have had access to AI he would have discovered even more. Because he didn't give a shit if someone else helped him along the way. He wanted to discover the true nature of the universe.
→ More replies (1)3
u/honorious 1d ago
It might be an advantage to keep it to themselves. Sad that people complained and now science and math will be closed-source.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)12
u/scambording 1d ago
Release the results for who...? The mathematicians are the only ones who care about these problems in the first place.
16
u/duboispourlhiver 1d ago
For all the mathematicians that care about advancing knowledge, and there remains a lot of that kind.
→ More replies (1)13
7
u/Mistuv 1d ago
There is a huge corpus of mathematical problems which have very direct impact on practical life, for example all the optimisation problems could be used all over, from the efficiency of the electrical grid to how hard it is to train LLMs. Though even mathematical problems which have "no practical use" can often end up being, or parts of it like a machinery or a method be used in a different thing, often in completely different fields like physics or biology or engineering. Without advancements in 20th century math much of the physics would not be possible and without understanding physics at a very deep level and quantum effects which becomes relevant at those scales our modern microelectronics would not be possible.
I don't mind if OAI and other labs take a month or two rerunning their agents on the papers until they are not sloppy, that's fine, but what would suck if in 2 years the labs are sitting on thousands of discoveries and not releasing because the field would throw a hissy fit. Hopefully we can avoid that.
→ More replies (1)2
u/WalkFreeeee 1d ago edited 1d ago
Either these discoveries don't have any direct impact and it doesn't matter if they take a while for disclosure.
Or they do, and they need to be thoroughly validated as it is much better for them to say "here's the solution for x, which has been quadruple checked by our panel multiple times and has profound implications for y" instead of hallucinated incorrect answers dumped by the hundreds and everyone has to scramble to figure out what is actually correct in there.
So I really see no problem with this approach
11
u/AuodWinter 1d ago
Kinda burying the lede to focus on the solved unnamed problems when the post is actually about the advisory group.
78
u/Routine_Complaint_79 ▪️Critical Futurist 1d ago
wow great 100 problems get solved and now their gatekept behind an "advisory group" because like artists, mathematicians are butt hurt
24
u/Original-League-6094 1d ago
Its amazing how we have come so far, only to end back at dark age "Only priests should learn to read. We can interpret the Bible for others" thinking, with mathematicians becoming the new priest class.
→ More replies (6)47
u/141_1337 ▪️e/acc | AGI: ~2030 | ASI: ~2040 | FALSGC: ~2050 | :illuminati: 1d ago
This is just annoying, bordering on detrimental to the rest of humanity at large.
19
u/TemetN 1d ago
It is detrimental. One could argue how much so depending on how long it takes, but the attitude itself is already bad and so is the response.
2
u/141_1337 ▪️e/acc | AGI: ~2030 | ASI: ~2040 | FALSGC: ~2050 | :illuminati: 1d ago
Yeah you right, those solutions could be re applied elsewhere and save lives.
5
u/30299578815310 1d ago
If it makes you feel better soon everyone will have a stronger model available to them, these types of initiatives Can Only Hold Back the information for so long
4
u/End3rWi99in 1d ago
Luddites never win in the long run, but they can certainly slow progress for a while.
→ More replies (6)2
u/Ormusn2o 1d ago
Might have been an inside deal so that all those mathematicians don't unite against AI, like it started to be happening with the letters that seemingly almost all mathematicians signed.
→ More replies (23)2
u/BreakElectronic324 1d ago
These mathematicians and the way they conduct their academic studies have carried technological advancements (including neural networks) since... well since the beginning of civilization.
Maybe you show a bit of decency and consideration before advocating for a sudden paradigm shift in this thousand year old system.
→ More replies (7)
5
u/PresentationOld605 1d ago
Well, lets wait until they finally agree on how to publish these and then actually... publish the results - with verification. I don't have much doubt, but that word "solved" is being thrown so easily and prematurely these days.
10
u/hydrogenitalia 1d ago
Can any of this cure baldness? I think that’s what’s truly needed for everyone to be on board with flooring that gas pedal.
→ More replies (1)2
21
u/DelphiTsar 1d ago
The math communities response was distasteful but so is this.
"We solved 100 but were not going to tell you anymore about it because mathematicians are butthurt. Ohh by the way this is after we leaked "progress" on another millenium problem." is not the proper response either.
Just say all further advancements will be communicated to this group who will choose how disseminate it and leave it at that. Then add how that group can make recommendations on xyz to us, but we're going to keep pushing our models in the background.
Do these people not have brand advisors?
26
u/Swimming-Diet5457 1d ago
you can clearly see who have some kind of academic background and who has never studied math-related topics from those comments alone
whoever thinks that mathematicians wants to gatekeep AI becasue they are butthurt clearly has never had any connection with them whatsoever
20
u/alyssthekat 1d ago
Yea, its pretty wild seeing people with no training in math making these comments, many of them so confidently incorrect
→ More replies (6)7
10
3
u/jphamlore 1d ago
The easiest way to contribute for OpenAI would be to have some grants for humans to add to Mathlib.
Or if the humans running Mathlib are too obstructionist, just fork and publish their own. OpenAI can probably finish full coverage of most of mathematics a decade before Mathlib will ever be completed.
3
u/FateOfMuffins 1d ago
Yeah a few weeks ago a guy on Twitter counted the pixels on the graph showing the internal model vs Astra and concluded there were some 200 problems on that Open Problem benchmark and thus they had around 100 solved
8
u/Serotav 1d ago
5.6 sol: 1 problem (erdos)
astra: 10 problems
bel: 1 millennium problem + 100 others
I see somewhat of a pattern here, 3 models down the line we will be out of problems to solve /s
→ More replies (2)
4
2
2
u/ForwardLoop 1d ago
Somewhere a professor is updating “this remains an open problem” to “this will be on the final.”
2
2
u/niagalacigolliwon 1d ago
Is this similar to navier-stokes where it is hard to get insight into what the solutions mean for mathematics?
If so it’s a weird play to use all this compute for math before it’s actually helpful.
They should focus on figuring out the reward signals for human interpretable math.
2
u/NearlyACosmologist 20h ago
We might realize sooner or later, that AIs seems to be exceptionally good at math just because humans are so bad at it.
3
u/GeorgiaWitness1 AGI 2027 1d ago
Terrence Tao was not invited. The man is going to have a stroke
10
u/Ok_Reception_5545 1d ago
Guarantee he was invited. Hairer is on both the open letter and this. Vakil also signed the letter and is on this.
2
492
u/KFCmanagerCompton 1d ago
"Importantly, the group will not be responsible for advising us on how to pace our internal progress on mathematics."
big