pickleRick243

If you visit bogleheads, you'll see countless stories of people with modest middle class incomes (teachers even) who steadily saved and invested in the US stock market over 30 years and are now sitting on a comfortable nest egg of a couple of million in their 50's.

I can respect your opinion if it's consistent- i.e. it's not just directed at OpenAI's results. But this seems to be an example of a common phenomenon with AI discourse: while disparaging LLM achievements, you indirectly insult the careers/accomplishments of 99% of mathematicians for whom this would easily be the crown jewel of their CV.

Actual scientists are not interested in using these tools to their full capability because of a fundamental psychological block where they have the need to feel superior to the LLM. The point is that AI labs have a thesis that AI will supersede humans in all cognitive work, and since few scientists have this view (or have the temperament to even contemplate this view), they have to do it themselves. In any case, they are attracting strong/talented biologists (Dario himself has a biology background) to work on this and provide their expertise, but presumably they filtered for scientists who are in fact "AI-pilled".

Look at what's happening in the math community- rather than excitedly embracing the power of AI's ability to generate new proofs, they are screaming for it to slow down (and quite a few want it simply stopped). Many scientists, even in ostensibly more real-world fields are broadly cut from the same cloth.

sorry, maybe I wasn't clear. What I mean is that you can create an account to view posts and not reply, i.e. have a lurker account.

I think the claim is that the principled stance would be to ignore all X content.

why is that? Why can't you just use it in read only fashion?

You don't need the source? Just iterate it on the output of the tool itself?

actually I think the whole point is we're finding that the chess analogy to math is in fact quite apt. Math is just an extremely complex game. Its rules can be written down and there are win conditions. It's really not far fetched to think that through information theory, a reasonable measure of depth and beauty to a definition or conjecture can be defined. Then the game is simply to maximize the number of such artifacts produced of high depth and beauty along with proofs of the relevant conjectures.

Philosophers I'm sure can debate this back and forth but it seems probable that some things we thought were ineffable are in fact quantifiable to a degree, and now we have the technology and the machines to bring that to the logical conclusion.

lol right. The nonchalance in referring to taxi/bus driver jobs.

Remember when we all said it's a good thing when the coal mining jobs are going away and that they should all just learn to code? Maybe a little more of that energy right now.

for many fairly strong mathematicians, the career calculus is fame and status (mild though it may be) through mathematics or anonymity but financial reward in tech or finance. Yes, clout by becoming a lifelong academic is in fact rational for some and part of their motivation. Of course they really like what they do as well, but earning the respect of the peers they know are also respected by a large swathe of society is very important.

what about cancer?

sounds a bit like cope. Crouzeix's conjecture was solved exactly under these circumstances and I wouldn't describe it as "not that valuable". In any case, AI capabilities will increase dramatically over the next few years while human math capability will not. That means that there's a fixed target regarding whatever is currently considered a "serious math problem" and its difficulty level. Soon the average problem solved with a few hundred dollars of compute will be at that bar.

your questioning made it sound abnormal. If this conversation were about Kobe Bryant and someone used "Kobe" to refer to him, would you have made your comment? Pretty clearly your criticism of parasociality doesn't have much bite if everyone is parasocial.

what? So everyone on earth is parasocial for calling Kobe Bryant Kobe?

I thought as much- my point is that as AI capabilities continue to expand, AI skeptics inadvertently and ironically end up belittling the humans they presumably hold in high esteem vs. the "cold machines" that aren't capable of true thought or creativity. When one says that solving a Millennium prize problem is not impressive, one is essentially demeaning practically all mathematicians and the field of mathematics itself.

I'm not sure if you meant it this way, but this is more an insult directed at mathematics, not openAI.

I think the point is that one of the biggest problems in the field has been solved and yet the excitement from this is nearly nil. Can you imagine if say breast cancer were cured under similar circumstances, or even worse (say OpenAI openly admitting it basically stole a bunch of other researcher's chatGPT conversations)? No one would care about these petty bickerings- or at least the headline "CURE FOR BREAST CANCER FOUND" would completely swamp anything else. This is embarrassing: it tells you almost no one- not even mathematicians themselves really care about their own problems- if they're not careful people will get the impression it's all a form of bean counting in a carefully constructed "safe space" where making sure people get the credit is more important than the work itself. That only happens in fields/problems where no one actually really cares about the output.

Honestly, the attitude of the math community is a bit cringe and increasingly I think some of the elite/mystical aura is fading. Rather than a rich fertile jungle where AI can barely chomp through a fraction of the luscious terrain, one gets the sense it's a desert and all the oases are running dry.

This article is so mid. The author clearly feels how mid he is and is desperate to justify that mid people are also smart, maybe even smarter in that superior nebulous way on ambiguous, ill-defined problems than those squares that can only solve those boring textbook well-defined problems.

So because you personally needed extra time to mature, you want to force a nationwide measure to force everyone to do the same? No one is stopping anyone from taking a year off before applying to college.

It's because it's risky and also requires actually being exceptional at something. So people choose the arduous brute force method because they know they can do it and it has a lower bound in terms of outcome.

In any case, this isn't unique to college admissions. The same story plays out in terms of career and all facets of life.

I notice your two comments straddle the contradiction "It's definitely not happening, but also it's terrible that it is."

Yeah, even without the resets, chatgpt subscription currently goes quite a bit further than an equivalent anthropic plan. The main reason to have an anthropic plan is to get access to Fable 5 if you feel the quality of output makes it worth it.

Society is made up of families, i.e. children and parents. So yes of course it's up to society to solve these problems, tautologically. But that's not what you meant. Everywhere you wrote "society", you really meant "government". Might as well be honest about it.

"A detected mark provides a signal that content was processed by Claude, but is not fully conclusive."

"Lack of a detected mark doesn’t mean the content wasn’t AI-generated or processed."

It's 90% to advance science via cheap labor and 10% to train a small group of future experts who will hire grad students to 90% advance science via cheap labor etc. ...

Which part of it is highly technical or jargon loaded?

"I am not confused. Because herein these forums, I predicted everything that was going to happen years ago."

I mean, lol.

It was also about 10x longer than it had to be because an LLM was heavily involved in its writing.