11 ms·

Does it matter who gets the credit at this point? Both used AI to do 99%+ of the work. So... do machines have ego?

by ltononro 9d ago

elternal_love 9d ago
Machine owners have stocks which valuation must increase to satisfy their debts.
- ltononro 9d ago
  Sad reality
usrnm 9d ago
I guess, you don't use AI for work? Otherwise, why should you be paid for it? Should you only be paid for the code you actually wrote yourself?
- ltononro 9d ago
  I do. But the difference is: do I go around bragging that my agent worked for 88h to solve a problem? Where is the credit coming from? Is it coming from the: I was the first one to think about throwing a prompt: "Solve Riemann Hypothesis" and it turns out that by luck of the non-deterministic behavior of the agent, it got right? Wow, that is a lot of merit really. Congrats... Sorry the sarcasm, but really your point makes absolutely no sense. It is completely different to design something with AI and then execute, validate, evolve vs just prompt it machine-g-brrrr style and get a result. This brings an important question. Nowadays I don't write code, I review code, I review systems behavior and get paid for it. Will that be the same for math researchers? Their prompt/problem is already well-posed out there. Ours, in the day-to-day, are not. Will the first one to verify AI work get the credit? or is it going to be the dumdum that types a simple prompt and has the compute to run it for 21321 hours? I absolutely don't get your point here. Or you are just rage baiting
  - ltononro 9d ago
    If the machine is highly non-deterministic, it is a matter of luck to get to the result, therefore using agentic swarms to optimize chance.
mrbungie 9d ago
They represent different AI usage patterns. OpenAI wants everyone to believe that it was done with a practically autonomous network of thousands of agents with little to no human intervention for 88 hours, while Buckmaster/Alpöge were using AI in a more guided way for months. If OpenAI actually used anything from Buckmaster/Alpöge work they would be misleading the public.
- ltononro 9d ago
  Agree! Not sure I believe that Buckmaster/Alpöge were guiding the AI. This is just their way of saying that they had something in the process and deserve merit.
  - code51 9d ago
    So you believe they're like "solve navier-stokes make me rich make no mistakes" despite being mathematicians of top ability? Occam's Razor for sure.
digitaltrees 9d ago
Asking the question in the right way may be 99% of the work. And the fact that openAI is effectively snooping on users and then outspending them to announce a break through is just gross.
- ltononro 9d ago
  Is it really? If I ask my swarm of agents to read about every relevant stuff about NS problem online might me more than what any researcher can prompt the machine these days.
  - ambicapter 9d ago
    Go win a Millenium prize then.
  - digitaltrees 9d ago
    LLMs pattern match based on the prompt. Go ask for medical with my tummy hurts and patient presents with intestinal cramps and see how asking a question as an expert changes the interaction
sensanaty 9d ago
If you take OpenAI at face value, they claim they threw a relatively simple prompt at the problem on a whim and boom presto, a swarm of "agents", 15 million dollars and 90 hours later they disproved the hypothesis. Wow, look at how powerful our AI is, you don't even need to be a world-class mathematician, you just tell it to solve a problem and it does! By contrast, what the world-class 2 mathematicians did was sat down and started working on their proof for over a year, using AI along the way to help with their research. A much more grounded and realistic use of these tools, but one that doesn't generate nearly as much hype as the alternative. The cracks in OAI's story has been immediately disproven, and they seemingly plagiarized the work of the 2 and then threw the team of researchers and the 15 million dollars at the problem after the fact. It doesn't exactly bode well for their hype machine when you consider the chain of events here, which is why people care about this, as OAI's constant and incessant lies they spew every minute of every day is finally hopefully catching up to them, and right before their big IPO too. Editing to add: And I think it's all such a shame. We live in a time with genuinely insanely cool technology that is doing some truly incredible, ground-breaking stuff, but it's all tainted by a gaggle of greedy sociopaths and reprobates whose only goal in life is to have the largest number in their bank accounts. LLMs could've been such an amazingly neutral and cool and useful tool had more level-headed people been at the wheel, but instead we're stuck with this childish bullshit and giving the likes of Sam Altman real power to enact societal collapse.
- ltononro 9d ago
  >what the world-class 2 mathematicians did was sat down and started working on their proof for over a year If they were not related to anthropic I'd probably agree with you. OpenAI is much more for science than they are imo. Anthropic culture is all about "machine go brrrr" more than all of the other labs. If they had access to better models they'd probably would've one-shotted the solution. When the creator of bun was just "vibe-sciencing" it was ok. There is little to no evidence that they've been working using AI in this problem for over a year. Maybe they've been working on the problem for decades. So many other scientist have. Are they better because they threw a prompt and let it go brr?? When we put this in the perspective of how agents are changing the landscape of math/science, true it is shitty and weird. When folks are saying these scientists by anthropic that vibe-science'd the solution are victims, just because they did it with a smaller model, it is not defensible imo. And credit loses meaning here. The credit is shared with all the scientists that contributed somehow with the data in the AI pre-pos/training and not the prompter.

Does it matter who gets the credit at this point? Both used AI to do 99%+ of the work. So... do machines have ego?

elternal_love 9d ago

Machine owners have stocks which valuation must increase to satisfy their debts.

ltononro 9d ago
Sad reality

usrnm 9d ago

I guess, you don't use AI for work? Otherwise, why should you be paid for it? Should you only be paid for the code you actually wrote yourself?

ltononro 9d ago
I do. But the difference is: do I go around bragging that my agent worked for 88h to solve a problem? Where is the credit coming from? Is it coming from the: I was the first one to think about throwing a prompt: "Solve Riemann Hypothesis" and it turns out that by luck of the non-deterministic behavior of the agent, it got right? Wow, that is a lot of merit really. Congrats... Sorry the sarcasm, but really your point makes absolutely no sense. It is completely different to design something with AI and then execute, validate, evolve vs just prompt it machine-g-brrrr style and get a result. This brings an important question. Nowadays I don't write code, I review code, I review systems behavior and get paid for it. Will that be the same for math researchers? Their prompt/problem is already well-posed out there. Ours, in the day-to-day, are not. Will the first one to verify AI work get the credit? or is it going to be the dumdum that types a simple prompt and has the compute to run it for 21321 hours? I absolutely don't get your point here. Or you are just rage baiting
- ltononro 9d ago
  If the machine is highly non-deterministic, it is a matter of luck to get to the result, therefore using agentic swarms to optimize chance.

mrbungie 9d ago

They represent different AI usage patterns. OpenAI wants everyone to believe that it was done with a practically autonomous network of thousands of agents with little to no human intervention for 88 hours, while Buckmaster/Alpöge were using AI in a more guided way for months. If OpenAI actually used anything from Buckmaster/Alpöge work they would be misleading the public.

ltononro 9d ago
Agree! Not sure I believe that Buckmaster/Alpöge were guiding the AI. This is just their way of saying that they had something in the process and deserve merit.
- code51 9d ago
  So you believe they're like "solve navier-stokes make me rich make no mistakes" despite being mathematicians of top ability? Occam's Razor for sure.

digitaltrees 9d ago

Asking the question in the right way may be 99% of the work. And the fact that openAI is effectively snooping on users and then outspending them to announce a break through is just gross.

ltononro 9d ago
Is it really? If I ask my swarm of agents to read about every relevant stuff about NS problem online might me more than what any researcher can prompt the machine these days.
- ambicapter 9d ago
  Go win a Millenium prize then.
- digitaltrees 9d ago
  LLMs pattern match based on the prompt. Go ask for medical with my tummy hurts and patient presents with intestinal cramps and see how asking a question as an expert changes the interaction

sensanaty 9d ago

If you take OpenAI at face value, they claim they threw a relatively simple prompt at the problem on a whim and boom presto, a swarm of "agents", 15 million dollars and 90 hours later they disproved the hypothesis. Wow, look at how powerful our AI is, you don't even need to be a world-class mathematician, you just tell it to solve a problem and it does! By contrast, what the world-class 2 mathematicians did was sat down and started working on their proof for over a year, using AI along the way to help with their research. A much more grounded and realistic use of these tools, but one that doesn't generate nearly as much hype as the alternative. The cracks in OAI's story has been immediately disproven, and they seemingly plagiarized the work of the 2 and then threw the team of researchers and the 15 million dollars at the problem after the fact. It doesn't exactly bode well for their hype machine when you consider the chain of events here, which is why people care about this, as OAI's constant and incessant lies they spew every minute of every day is finally hopefully catching up to them, and right before their big IPO too. Editing to add: And I think it's all such a shame. We live in a time with genuinely insanely cool technology that is doing some truly incredible, ground-breaking stuff, but it's all tainted by a gaggle of greedy sociopaths and reprobates whose only goal in life is to have the largest number in their bank accounts. LLMs could've been such an amazingly neutral and cool and useful tool had more level-headed people been at the wheel, but instead we're stuck with this childish bullshit and giving the likes of Sam Altman real power to enact societal collapse.

ltononro 9d ago
>what the world-class 2 mathematicians did was sat down and started working on their proof for over a year If they were not related to anthropic I'd probably agree with you. OpenAI is much more for science than they are imo. Anthropic culture is all about "machine go brrrr" more than all of the other labs. If they had access to better models they'd probably would've one-shotted the solution. When the creator of bun was just "vibe-sciencing" it was ok. There is little to no evidence that they've been working using AI in this problem for over a year. Maybe they've been working on the problem for decades. So many other scientist have. Are they better because they threw a prompt and let it go brr?? When we put this in the perspective of how agents are changing the landscape of math/science, true it is shitty and weird. When folks are saying these scientists by anthropic that vibe-science'd the solution are victims, just because they did it with a smaller model, it is not defensible imo. And credit loses meaning here. The credit is shared with all the scientists that contributed somehow with the data in the AI pre-pos/training and not the prompter.