points by p-e-w 2 days ago | 0 comments
So there were mathematicians who would have solved Navier-Stokes, Quasi-Riemann, and ETH, if only AI hadn’t snatched away and finished off their work they were just wrapping up?
People will be getting second-hand embarrassment when they read these comments in the future.
[–] peddling-brink 2 days ago
[–] bigbadfeline 2 days ago
Indeed, all credit should belong to the human researchers who collected the facts and traced the way.
However, with an eye on private AI as a business desperate for attention and profits, the only way out of this is to build open source research AI - better than anything the closed frontiers have to offer. It should be under the full control of the people who use it and trained to support the accepted ethics and citation discipline.
[–] jacquesm 2 days ago
True, but then the 'closed source' research AI company will do what they just did: siphon up all your research, add a bit of their own and beat you at your own game. You can't win this by playing by the rules, they are using a different set of rules and with an entirely different level of funding. Think about it: the amount of money and compute they have at their disposal is larger than that that of all universities combined.
[–] whoanoway 2 days ago
> trained to support the accepted ethics
This ought to be good. Please share. Be specific.
https://tenor.com/en-CA/view/eating-popcorn-deer-hungry-yum-...
[–] drdec 2 days ago
The point is that no human had access to the same data, because the LLM used the unpublished work of a number of mathematicians. The only way for a human to gain access to the same work, i.e. the same dots to connect, is to be in active collaboration with those mathematicians. In which case they would all be included in the resulting paper.
There are ways to do what they are doing ethically. But this isn't it.