why is it so hard to accept that a brilliant mathematician can have the same human flaws as anyone else i.e. ego, arrogance, jealousy and competitiveness?
Like, it would be very hard to accept my best friend is a child rapist just because I discovered he had hentai that featured high school girls. It is a tenuous link at best, compounded with a demand that I ignore everything I know about him.
Could I be wrong? Sure. But you're implying it should be easy to accept with your "why is it so hard?" question.
Your evidence is vastly inferior. It's not even substantial enough to base a hypothesis on. One slideshow and you build a whole headcanon around how viciously egotistical he is.
not to mention his stance on AI isn't even egotistical? Regarding AI in math, it's quite reasonable: math isn't about solving theorems. It's about conceptual understanding. Until LLMs actually are capable of conceptual understanding, they don't threaten mathematicians.
It's just like with art: they can make pretty pictures, but LLMs aren't making art.
personally i feel like you're resisting what im saying because it challenges your view of Tao and you're reluctant to reconsider it .. maybe im wrong, but dismissing what im saying as "not substantial" without actually engaging with the points doesnt exactly help your case .. it comes across more like you're determined to defend him regardless of the merits of the criticism, which is hardly logical and arguably looks like motivated reasoning ...
ps: saying AI images arent art but just "pretty pictures" is just cringey ... if it evokes emotion, provokes thought or creates an aesthetic experience, its art ... i mean im sure u have a pair of sports trainers and jackets .. that are made by a machine using synthetic fibers and not artistically hand crafted ... and ppl do view fashion as an art form ..
Questions of AI policy are all hard and anyone who confidently says they know the right thing to do is too confident. Tao's fallible like anyone else, but yeah, as voices to pay attention to go he's very good.
what im suprised about though is why arnt you and others here more suspectful of Tao's skeptisim of AI .. as Wittgenstein's ruler reminds us teh very thing we use to measure something else may itself need measuring .. so why should tao's expertise be any exception?
The dude keeps a continually automatically produced document of his takes on AI. He's not a skeptic overall. https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/ai-views.html . In this interview the interviewer describes him as an evangelist for AI in math and he doesn't disagree. https://teorth.github.io/tao-web/ai-views-interview.html
It seems like your inclination is to discount his experience with research mathematics. I agree with you that that's probably what Taleb would do - Taleb has a giant ego and basically operates under the assumption that everyone else has the same giant ego as he does but is (a) less honest about it (b) dumber than he is.
I also read and re read the link you shared .. it’s almost baffling that he is so incredibly hesitant on not being able to clearly take a position on anything and is so painfully nuanced in his writing as if he’s almost hedging every sentence ..
PS: All my life, mathematicians were made to look and portrayed like the ultimate truth seekers (both at school, by the media, in films and in the sciences etc) and all I see is in Tao is a man trying to so badly hold on to the main character energy … perhaps demonstrating a bit of humility like Lee Sedol after loosing to the machine would be in order … in his own words, he sees himself as a fox, not a hedgehog.. guess now that he's been outfoxed .. its best not to say unhinged stuff like "there's no reason to be this fast" or that absolulty out of touch "Math 2.0" cancer slide ... what. an. absolute. tool.
As for you, what's your opinion about what he said and why do you think that?
> As for you, what's your opinion about what he said and why do you think that?
many years ago i had watchd Nassim Talebs commencement speech at AUB .. where he described russian mathematicians after the fall of soviet union .. who earned around $200 a month .. but continued doing work appreciated by only a small number of people .. and regarded displaying awards and regofnitions as a sign of weakness or lack of confidence in their contributions .. in contrast, when Tao was asked my Lex Friedman about Gregory Parlmen rejecting the millenium prize .. he gave a dissapointing non answer .. which reveals a lot about him as an individual (not as a mathmatician) ..
his reactions to OAI papers .. both initially on social media and now in his presentation .. carry that same ego .. and its quite evident that rather than mathematics being solely about the pursuit of truth .. he does care VERY MUCH about who idnetified the truth .. and that makes him only very human .. which is waht i initally said.
Nah, he is simply being a politician.