So $15M of OpenAI/Anthropic tokens, won't this just encourage more model use that started the "issue" in the first place?
When you remove this greed and status seeking you might actually end up with a healthy environment.
You're gonna get downvoted but this is absolutely true. People who've never been in real professional academia don't understand but this is exactly what most very successful academics are like.
> When you remove this greed and status seeking you might actually end up with a healthy environment.
Nah I think you're just gonna have collapse because you've removed all incentive.
Seems that space is really about that
I don’t necessarily disagree but it seems like the AI companies are just as status seeking and infinitely greedier.
It may be true in some cases but as a blanket condemnation of the entire field it makes no sense. Moreover, I can't fathom how you could reach this conclusion if you've actually done any reading on "the whole situation." The reality is precisely the opposite of what you're claiming.
Mathematicians are upset partly because AI companies are "scooping" their work. If you had worked on something for years and this happened, you'd be upset, too. The manner in which this happened with Navier-Stokes was unconscionable. The mathematicians who did the work deserve recognition. OpenAI deliberately stole it from them.
More importantly, the purpose of mathematics isn't to produce proofs. It's to produce mathematics and mathematicians. Working through problems helps people find new mathematics -- and makes people mathematicians. A machine that generates proofs destroys that. It breaks the cycle that makes mathematics fruitful, interesting, and not just self-regenerative but self-propagating.
AI companies aren't just clear-cutting the fields of math; they're sowing them with salt -- and they're doing this precisely because of greed and hunger for status and the title of "first."
Perhaps to some maths is about progress, like other sciences, rather than self-portrayal
Quants are open about that they just want to make a shitton of money.
The guys I know who work at OpenAI just want an expensive car and a hot wife to fuck.
Mathematicians(and many academics) however have long been hiding behind the guise of furthering human knowledge, understanding things, etc. Then a model does theorem proofs and suddenly there is chaos and the real incentives and motivations are put on display for the world to see.
See professor Williams' thoughts on a recent conjecture that openai proved: https://people.csail.mit.edu/virgi/thoughts.txt
And Williams thoughts are kind of idealistic. "Now the credit is shared across the entire field". This "credit" does not give your department grants or further your own career.
Rather it incentivizes you to be the first one to prompt, and to steal ideas from your peers because you can prompt better and have your name on more discoveries.
I don't think you disagree with the comment. Maybe it's a cynical way to describe the situation, and it sounds mean, but it doesn't make it untrue.
If mathematicians can't be motivated to understand math and advance human understanding via (for example) reading AI proofs because they can't put their name on new discoveries, then yes we need to figure out the motivations.
> It is highly reductive to argue that the only motivation is as crass as you put it.
"Genuine curiosity and underestanding" is apparently not enough to motivate all mathematicians (I'd even extend this to all researchers in all fields). If AI creates an environment where "prestige" can no longer be assigned to individuals and this creates a crisis in motivation among researchers, well, this is a problem, and accusing researchers as "greedy for status and clout trying to write their name on new discoveries in blood" is a somewhat mean and distasteful description of how we got into the situation. But again, not untrue IMHO.
Note that they didn't say the greed for status is the only motivation. We're adults here. We can see the strawman. I think we're all on the same page. Quit crying over insults.
This goes a fair bit beyond an insult. I'm calling out the frankly reductive and sophomoric frat boy thinking behind this statement.
I think some of it might be nihilism without actually thinking about it more deeply and trying to be constructive. Some of it is just .. well .. shallow thinking perhaps without much life experience, I wouldn't speculate.
Whenever someone tries to play white knight like this I ask my two standard questions:
1. Do you have a PhD?
2. Is your PhD in a theory area (math, mathematical physics, economic theory, TCS)?
I have yet to meet a white knight that doesn't fail one or both of these questions.