Can't you read the article and understand how he kind is obligated to engage with it ?
The alternative you are proposing implicitly is even crazier. OpenAI should not release a proof that is most likely correct so that it doesn’t burden others. What? It’s not about that guy dude. It’s about the society TM. One can’t delay progress because a guy may be burdened.
“Guys plz don’t release this thing that is absolutely correct but I’m kinda busy with other things ok?”
The alternative is that they do the work to properly present the results. They spend billions of dollars in AI training and inference but can't afford to even cite the literature properly? They're doing the bare minimum because they're inly interested in doing a PR stunt.
Bare minimum is still _solving_ the open problem standing there for years. Nobody owns math. Nobody owns giving enjoyable proofs to someone else.
If you don't like to engage with OAI proof dumbs in current state, don't. Maybe others will. Or maybe _these_ mathematicians are afraid that _other_ mathematicians will do it. Just elitism and gate keeping.
Ok, I don't see the point of discussing with you. It's clear that you decided what to believe in and no evidence will convince you that reality is more complex. The proof is that you ignored all the nuances expressed here by simply sticking to your simplistic interpretation, without any explanation of why such nuances are invalid.
Hey! It is really nice that you have dropped solution for so many open problems. We appreciate it and would like to see more. However, can you please work on the output writing/explanation quality? It is hard to read and understand. We would be happy to independently validate these but current paper quality leaves much to be desired.
That's it. This would make paper quality an important target for next generation models.
If problem was unreadable proofs, that would have been the reaction. But that's not what we are seeing :)
FWIW, in many online platforms, many actual mathematicians who referee papers, have said the quality of the papers are not outstanding, but they are still better than average.
> FWIW, in many online platforms, many actual mathematicians who referee papers, have said the quality of the papers are not outstanding, but they are still better than average.
I don't know what "online mathematicians" you're talking about, but I'm a professional one, do reviews and discuss regularly with other mathematicians (some of them of high profile); no one thinks that these AI papers are above average in terms of writing. This is what even in the most well-known online platforms has been repeated over and over. It seems like you're biased on this one.
Proofs can be unreadable for more than one reason. Are these ones unreadable because the math is super advanced or because current agents suck at clear writing? Maybe a bit of both?
Do you disagree with this? For example, if openai had provided really readable proofs with utmost care but still dropped 400 at once, would there have been less outrage?
Absolutely. If they cared about properly citing the bibliography, sharing how their models work, etc, it would be so much easier to make an assessment of the situation, of what will be math in the future, and all those deeper questions. What we got instead? from those 400 papers, there are already 4 that have been found to be a copy of recent publicly-available papers. They spend millions for "the good of science", but they can't afford basic scientific ethics?
Less criticism, yes
There’s always going to be outraged people, but outrage isn’t the word I would choose to describe the positions of the mathematicians I’ve read on this topic, including TFA. There’s a lot of optimism mixed with frustration that something important is missing