pred_

7 ms·

1.
by pred_ 4d ago
> but it is undoubtedly and objectively accelerating research. Part of the point of the letter is that it is quite possible to act in a way that is a net negative to research. The most obvious case is when the companies violate ethical s
2.
by pred_ 4d ago
> The declaration literally opens by writing that AI companies (or really anybody) saying, “Hey, let’s see if this powerful reasoning engine can solve an open problem in mathematics” is “detrimental” to the “science” of mathematics. Full
3.
by pred_ 4d ago
That's how I read it too. They know well that OpenAI have shown no desire to improve human understanding.
4.
by pred_ 4d ago
There are several cases of this already. Bubeck himself had to retract earlier claims of novelty, and more recently, the provenance of the non-sofic group result was brought into question. Most recently, it turn out that the construction us
5.
by pred_ 4d ago
And just to spell it out, since it looks like HackerNews is flooded by people who are new to science these days: even if a result doesn't come with a price, scholarly peer review is the norm across all of science: https://en
6.
by pred_ 4d ago
And chances are they never will publish it in any kind of useful format. Right now, the scientific community is outraged at OpenAI for going about their announcement in the least productive fashion they could have. It really does seem like
7.
by pred_ 5d ago
It's the same on Reddit, and if you look up a few comment histories, you'll find that it's mostly /r/singularity users and /r/accelerate posters that are spamming. So I assume that people are just delibera
8.
by pred_ 5d ago
> To be honest, I feel like the difficulty of reading AI proofs is due to the fact that we are on the verge of being beyond human comprehension. I can see where that's coming from, but I really don't think it's the case. E
9.
by pred_ 5d ago
If frontier labs had chosen to go the path of offering to assist in existing endeavors, helping to build knowledge alongside researchers in ongoing projects and following ethical and professional research standards, we wouldn't be havi
10.
by pred_ 5d ago
Are you aware that Tao is among the largest proponents of using AI in mathematics? The usage itself is not the point here.
11.
by pred_ 5d ago
Tao is about as pro the usage of AI in maths as anyone will get. The point isn't about whether or not we can use AI in maths because clearly it can be useful; it's that the unscientific approach taken by AI companies is detrimenta
12.
by pred_ 5d ago
That's one of several issues, obviously a big one, and they do touch on it: > Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous
13.
by pred_ 5d ago
How specific and constructive it is might be debatable, but he has tried to make concrete recommendations earlier; see e.g. slides 46-51 from the ICM talk: https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/slides/age-of-ai-icm-2026
14.
by pred_ 5d ago
Seeing how /r/singularity and /r/accelerate are leaking into maths forums, I foresee a wave of comments that fail to understand Tao's message, whether on purpose or not, so let's try to be clear here: Tao is no
15.
by pred_ 5d ago
Another scenario also just surfaced: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49657499 – the construction used by Anthropic for the Jacobian Conjecture counterexample appears to have existed in an unpublished but publically ava
16.
Endomorphisms of affine spaces and the Jacobian problem(arxiv.org)
5 points by pred_ 5d ago|1 comments
17.
by pred_ 5d ago
The context for this one is the counterexample, published by Anthropic employee Alpöge on social media, to the Jacobian Conjecture, which seemed magical in that it wasn't at all obvious how it came about. And with this paper, it looks
18.
by pred_ 6d ago
Given how much PII is fed through these systems, would it being opt-out by default not be violating the GDPR by a failure to require explicit consent (or otherwise provide the legal basis for processing)? If a court decides as much, I imagi
19.
by pred_ 6d ago
The authors had supposedly worked on it for a year, though. And why aim straight for scooping other researchers upon hearing rumours about their success? Normal, ethically acting, researchers would never do that. And how about existence of
20.
by pred_ 6d ago
Those statements were about NS, though; I don't think they've made similar statements for the non-sofic groups?
21.
Update from Buckmaster: Sébastien's statement is wildly false(mastodon.social)
6 points by pred_ 6d ago|0 comments
22.
by pred_ 7d ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49639182
23.
by pred_ 7d ago
He also just published this one: https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/07/finite-time-blowup... While his concerns expressed here aren't new, it looks like the recent cases of scientific misconduct were
24.
by pred_ 7d ago
Ah, this dupes https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49638353
25.
Tao: Reject the irresponsible and unsustainable usages of AI technology(terrytao.wordpress.com)
3 points by pred_ 7d ago|0 comments
26.
Open Letter about the Caltech Mathaton(docs.google.com)
2 points by pred_ 7d ago|0 comments
27.
by pred_ 7d ago
See https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/ for the announcement this refers to.
28.
More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math(mathstodon.xyz)
866 points by pred_ 7d ago|818 comments
29.
by pred_ 8d ago
That's the other thing. Even if it somehow magically turns out that they didn't plagiarize Buckmaster and Alpöge, that an independent audit goes through all their processes and finds that they could not possibly have stolen anythi
30.
by pred_ 8d ago
> we did not read any private chats Your post says “While unlikely, we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models .” We can discuss what it means to “read” things but obviou

More ›