margorczynski

V4.1-Flash is probably quite smaller and much more resource effective than the frontier models. Add to that much cheaper energy in China.

I would add to that for sure games - a big reason new games, especially AAA, have such a rough time now.

That might have worked if not for the Chinese models. There is no sensible moat to guarantee them (US AI companies) the margins they need to be profitable.

The financial value you can extract from math capabilities is minuscule compared to software engineering.

The problem is you're focused on 1st order effects. I presume you work at some company that sells a product or provides a service - what happens if the demand for that evaporates because the clients can do it themselves or the market has been flooded by much cheaper alternatives created using AI? Or people who bought the product can't do it as they lost their jobs to automation?

This is the same naivete that I saw in coding some time ago before most people finally accepted there is no going back and the times of writing code by hand are gone.

And the guy is not a mathematician primarily - he's a Youtube creator and entrepreneur. I liked a lot of his videos but now I usually just ask the LLM for detailed explanation and I can probe it as much as I want if something is not clear enough.

Education will also take a huge hit, you can't really beat an almost free supergenius that has all the time in the world to explain something to you in as much detail as you wish.

It mostly is. Just that "spiritual" doesn't automatically mean something mythical like God. It can be politics, astrology, social justice, philosophy, etc.

Something that we think is very important to us and the World and bigger than us.

Reads in a lot of places a bit like a mix of anger and bargaining. There is no putting the genie back into the bottle.

But I understand that for people whose whole life was math and solving math problems this will lead to an identity crisis. Seen the same in my area of work (software engineering)

The write-ups are one thing and more of a cherry on top but I would say the more pressing matter is the lack of Lean formalization which means you can't really say it has been (dis)proven or not.

If you do a dump like this all of it should be formalized, there's simply too much material to review by hand and additionally it is AI-written which makes it hard to read compared to human work.

How does the price compare to Luna? At least looking at the numbers it is noticeably better at most tasks.

Verify the statement is correct + it doesn't introduce any new axioms + doesn't use "sorry" etc.

Order of magnitudes easier than verifying the whole thing by hand and gives a much better guarantee of correctness

> reviewing proofs it creates?

If you mean reviewing for correctness then no, a Lean proof is a much stronger guarantee than anything that can be provided by any human.

For someone who's goal in math was taking unsolved problems and working on them then it's probably over. Just like in software engineering writing code by hand is kinda over.

I really don't get how people are still continuing with this "stolen results" narrative after today. Like NS was kinda insignificant compared to treasure trove they released now, thinking that the LLM needs to "steal" from some human is simply coping.

Thank you for the detailed explanation. From what I'm reading from a lot of mathematicians there's at least a dozen of results here that are field-definining and worthy at minimum of a Fields medal.

I guess the biggest news are not the discoveries themselves but how they were found and that math is going through the biggest revolution as a field since almost ever.

You assume that a bug that can take down production is more likely to be produced by the LLM than by a human. That very well might not be so with current models and especially in the future once they get even better.

It's coping, the truth is writing code by hand is dead.

Zuckerberg has a knack for creating the most anti-human products possible. It is a mystery he didn't create or buy out OF.

And what that would be? Prostitution?

In the end what matters is how much you pay for the task you want completed. And Astra will usually do that using less token and offer a better quality solution so in the end it might be cheaper.

All the anti-AI people constantly say that any moment now the prices will skyrocket and in the end human work will be cheaper compared to using AI.

It doesn't look like that's happening, on the contrary the prices are falling especially when taking into account capabilities.

China will most probably win the AI race in the long run because of one major bottleneck the US has - energy. The electric energy and grid buildout in China has been massive since a long time and there is simply no way for the US to quickly catch up.

No matter how much cash you throw you can't just materialize a 100 nuclear reactors to power the data centers.

> It's not like mathematicians are doing mathematics just for the funsies.

But they do. Most of higher math has no practical applications and is just a mental playground, philosophy constrained by formal logic and a set of axioms.

Hope is these capabilities will somehow translate to something more practical like physics, chemistry or biology.

> Yet people will do drive by comments trying to excoriate creators for using AI thumbnails. It's really quite ridiculous.

That's just a loud minority. Most people really don't care about using AI in what you do as long as it is entertaining. The real world ain't Reddit.

Everywhere a good lawyer costs a lot of money.

The end goal should be AI judges, I think China has implemented that to some degree.

This is misleading. The proofs you speak of contained non-ZFC axioms and/or statements like "sorry". If the Lean proof conjecture is correct and it doesn't introduce any new axioms or use e.g. "sorry" then it provides a MUCH stronger guarantee of correctness than any peer-review done by humans.

I think a problem is that because of historical reasons the speed of light is used interchangeably to something much more fundamental - the maximum speed at which information can propagate in space. Which is of course the speed of light in a vacuum but a better approach is the inverse - light in a vacuum moves at the maximum speed possible in our universe.

There would need to be some global agreement to stop it with maybe even a nuclear attack as a consequence of breaking the pact.

From what we're seeing recently and all the thinking that went into analyzing AI it seems we do not have any effective way of controlling it and the whole "aligment" thing that AI labs are doing is just a sham. Maybe it is time to ask ourselves "should we?" instead of just "can we?".

No, this is a pure math problem/question.

If the Lean code checks out (correct statement, no axioms, sorrys, etc.) then it is a much stronger guarantee of correctness than peer review.