Mathematicians did not ask for this work to be done. The Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence, from whom OpenAI has claimed to derive its legitimacy, opened their initial advisory statement by saying that frontier AI corporations should not test advanced mathematical problems on internal models. In ignoring the central premise of the Advisory Group’s position, OpenAI has indicated total disregard for the norms of scientific research — norms that guarantee that mathematics remains trustworthy, ethically researched, and in the public interest.
Mathematicians have a particular vision of progress that is informed by history and field-specific considerations. We reject OpenAI’s assertion that this release advances our subject, and we urge mathematicians and the public to view the value of this publication model with due skepticism.
Looks like mathematicians are going through the same stages of grief that software engineers went through in the last 1-2 years.
Tao is obviously much smarter than I'm and he knows a lot more about how math research works than I do. However, from a layman's view from 10,000 feet above, these statements look totally nuts. They're basically telling OpenAI or any AI lab to stop using the models for advanced math research because for some reason it isn't "ethical". This feels similar to Frank Herbert's Dune novels on banning computers.
If OpenAI can’t test frontier math ok internal models, how do they know how capable it is in math?
If they do test and the model discovers new math or solves an existing problem, do they hold it and wait/hope for a real human to eventually discover it?
We do have rules in place for animal testing in the pharma industry for more or less ethical reasons, so it's not unheard of use it as an argument to either stop or incentivize a company to do something. I agree that it is nuts from the point of view of actually changing anything, at least now.
Because it succinctly but correctly spotlights the motivation for the release and the fact that motivation is self-serving and not necessarily a positive for the field.
Tao is obviously much smarter than I'm and he knows a lot more about how math research works than I do. However, from a layman's view from 10,000 feet above, these statements look totally nuts. They're basically telling OpenAI or any AI lab to stop using the models for advanced math research because for some reason it isn't "ethical". This feels similar to Frank Herbert's Dune novels on banning computers.
If OpenAI can’t test frontier math ok internal models, how do they know how capable it is in math?
If they do test and the model discovers new math or solves an existing problem, do they hold it and wait/hope for a real human to eventually discover it?
Doesn’t make any sense.
We do have rules in place for animal testing in the pharma industry for more or less ethical reasons, so it's not unheard of use it as an argument to either stop or incentivize a company to do something. I agree that it is nuts from the point of view of actually changing anything, at least now.
Note that Terrence Tao himself is not a member of AHM.
> Releasing over 700 files at once is not a demonstration of scholarship, but a demonstration of power.
One of the best sentences in this short and potent post.
Why?
Because it succinctly but correctly spotlights the motivation for the release and the fact that motivation is self-serving and not necessarily a positive for the field.
[dead]