robotpepi

6 ms·

1.
by robotpepi 4d ago
> This kind of argument is always dangerous, because it essentially resorts to moving goalposts. "Oh, AI can now do X? Sure it is amazing, but it can't do Y yet, so we're totally safe!" It's not about moving goal
2.
by robotpepi 4d ago
Well the author of this one obtained a grant based on the work, the proof uses the same strategy as Anthropic's and even share some notation. I'm not an expert but this doesn't seem like one of those P!=NP proofs.
3.
by robotpepi 4d ago
> Disproof of the Jacobian conjecture by example It should be noted that there was a manuscript, available online since the beginning of 2025, with a solution to the Jacobian conjecture: "Adrian Vasiu claims that the 7 page AI paper
4.
by robotpepi 4d ago
I don't think the essay was proposing that mathematicians should continue to focus on proving everything by themselves forever. It's mostly a critic of how the discussion is focusing too much on that mere "yes/no" a
5.
by robotpepi 4d ago
> This subjective attitude turns mathematics into nothing more than number-poetry. I don't think you understood the point. The point applies to all of basic science. You of course want some explanation supporting the raw answer, so
6.
by robotpepi 4d ago
For the moment, AI is not capable of advancing mathematics _in the sense_ you're describing. AI is very bad at designing stuff, asking questions, etc. Maybe in the future you'll be able to ask the AI "cure cancer" and it
7.
by robotpepi 4d ago
> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase What are these comments? Tao, in particular, has been pro AI since years ago...
8.
by robotpepi 4d ago
> Wondering how this will discourage mathematicians at all, since now they have another tool to accelerate their research. I'm a professional mathematician and these tools are not available for me. So not happy about that! (just to
9.
by robotpepi 4d ago
I don't understand what you're proposing then. We can ask AI to solve practical problems of interest (making a computer faster for instance), but I'd say no one really believes that this is an unlimited resource. At some poin
10.
by robotpepi 4d ago
> I thought the historical examples of photography and chess engines would be enough for people to connect the dots, but apparently not. You're just an overconfident idiot who thinks that because there is an analogy along one dimen
11.
by robotpepi 5d ago
agree. so many people missing the point. I don't think they even bothered to read the letter.
12.
by robotpepi 5d ago
> I am saying that for a fixed target, like proving the Rieman hypothesis from scratch, the required hardware will shrink. Yes, but to what point the hardware will shrink? There are several orders of magnitude of difference in what in yo
13.
by robotpepi 5d ago
so you're 100% sure that AI will solve every intellectual problem in the future, since as long as that's not the case, it's us who need to ask the questions. I don't know man, I wouldn't bet on that. What if we end
14.
by robotpepi 5d ago
to be honest it is difficult to discuss with someone who doesn't even try to understand the basics of basic science (and how it compares with _applied_ sicence), yet talks with so much confidence. even the solution to navier stokes won
15.
by robotpepi 5d ago
> But I also think that he is a bit shell shocked, much like other luminaries in the past have been when confronted with rapid technological development You're locked into that idea, but provide no real argument. The dangers they de
16.
by robotpepi 5d ago
The problem with your opinions is that you tend to state certain very quesitonable ideas with 100% confidence. Right now, we don't know if AI will be able to solve bigger problems, or if they'll be so efficients that you no longer
17.
by robotpepi 5d ago
We can't be sure AI will be able to ask the questions of the future. At least right now, AI is not capable of that.
18.
by robotpepi 5d ago
I still don't see the analogy, can you care to develop?
19.
by robotpepi 5d ago
> Keep in mind employees at AI companies are publicly stating that they believe they're risking a >10% chance of human extinction. Are we really going to take what they say in public seriously?
20.
by robotpepi 5d ago
> Let's assume in the next decade GPT-7 PRO Ultra is cheaply ubiquitous, inspectable, reproducible, transferable, reasonably un-constrained by any institutional interests. I'd argue that this extremely extreme scenario is the o
21.
by robotpepi 5d ago
I don't see any meaningful analogy with your cites of Baudelaire. First of all, Baudelaire discusses art, which is very different to science. Several new forms of art have emerged, and then slowly integrated, despite the strong opinion
22.
by robotpepi 5d ago
It makes no sense to compare mathematics with chess. Chess is a sport. No one is interested in watching two machines compete. Chess doesn't have a practical impact. Etc. What you seem to suggest is that AI will be able to completely (o
23.
by robotpepi 5d ago
> But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive. you completely misunderstood the critics. your analogy is awful. this is much closer to the industrial revolution in the uk: it brought a lot of progr
24.
by robotpepi 5d ago
I really hate this overly condescending takes. First of all, what do you know about the internals of math research that allows you to speak with so much confidence. Second, you're not even addressing the issues raised by the letter! Th
25.
by robotpepi 6d ago
> It's not obvious to me that's an unethical thing to do, if it happened as they described. What!? Even if everything OpenAI said is accurate (big hypothesis there!), it's highly unethical to rush a solution because others
26.
by robotpepi 6d ago
> if this were true, it should be stated more clearly stated more clearly by who? people in social media? I don't know what your feed shows you, but if you focus on what the visible people in the math community is (and have been) sa
27.
by robotpepi 6d ago
> but right now there's no credible evidence, only claims. since it's openAI who has the evidence (in the form of chain of thoughts, their internal processes, etc etc), it's on them to justify why they're innocent. bu
28.
by robotpepi 6d ago
> We are scared of AI being smarter than us, the "human helped the AI" narrative is more psychologically comforting. We're scared of big tech companies concentrating ridiculous amounts of power, destroying the communities
29.
by robotpepi 6d ago
> They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it. Yeah, the guys who solved it for Euler and in the hypoviscous case, with the same technique that worked for full Navier--Stokes. They were "just&quot
30.
by robotpepi 6d ago
It's in OpenAI's first announcement that they had solved the problem.

More ›