22 points sashank_1509 1 hour ago 8 comments
sashank_1509 1 hour ago | parent
Early sentiments are a lot of the write ups still read like slop and it feels very rushed and not very polished.
illwrks 50 minutes ago | parent
I wonder if the issue is that not many people within OpenAI can validate the output. Therefore what reads well looks good, and then was published.
If that’s the case in a way its a similar delusion that average people are experiencing with their own AI use.
ssfdg 7 minutes ago | parent
This is almost certainly the case. I very much doubt that anyone there of any importance in the decision-making process around this actually cares about the math, just the headlines they can get from pushing it out.
SequoiaHope 5 minutes ago | parent
I am certainly experiencing what seems like some mania or computer addiction from these technologies. I’ve never been able to produce such results as I can today. I lose sleep staying up late working on it (though to be fair this has always been an issue). But the volume of work is so hard to audit. It makes it difficult to make flawless results. That doesn’t excuse the mode of publication. They could have had humility in their announcement. “We are seeing some interesting results and seeking community validation.” Maybe they did, I did not read their full announcement. But that would have been the right move if they can’t verify something fully.
ekjhgkejhgk 19 minutes ago | parent
Just the other day I was thinking, if unsupervised maths will descend into "oops we found a bug in some code, branch XYZ of maths is no longer true".
jjgreen 6 minutes ago | parent
c.f. Italian differential geometry
literalAardvark 4 minutes ago | parent
If you go far enough to the edge that's already how math works, since everything is very interpretation-sensitive.
There is however a new problem of scale. Erdös was a human and still managed to create work for an entire generation of mathematicians, how much of a mess will an automathician create?