robotpepi

> reduce the burden of refereeing new work.

As a professional mathematician, I rarely need to worry about the correctness of a paper. The main difficulty of writing a review is instead understanding what the results of the paper mean in its context, how the results are presented, etc.

there's less corruption than in the US nowadays.

that's precisely what the post says under the title.

> while remaining at the top.

isn't the linked post precisely an example of the opposite?

Tao is a good example of a (extremely good) problem solver that doesn't build theory.

do we have any concrete idea of how well the models are scaling now? I agree with these 10 results being impressive, and it is easy to think "wow, and last year the models were barely able to solve IMOs problems". But for me it is perfectly possible that a non sofic group could be found by 100 good IMO students working on all the different strategies that have been proposed (OpenAIs solution was based on "expander graphs", which were introduced to solve the problem some years ago), so it could be that current AI is simply many (say 1000) old models working in parallel. This is linear scaling, not exponential. It could be I'm completely wrong also, the problem is that we have little information.

> but proving a group was non-sofic was out of reach

a colleague was telling me that the base idea for proving that something is not sofic already appeared in the literature around 2019 or so (this is the "expanders graphs" that are mentioned in OpenAI s paper. no one had managed to find a concrete example though. this doesn't make the result less impressive in any case.

it could also be that they try every possible approach that has been proposed by humans. it seems that was the case for the non sofic group example. humans are not able to do the same at that scale. it's unfortunate that we don't know what's happening behind the hood with these models, and that's a huge danger also for the rest of us without access to them.

what are even "results" in mathematics if not understanding? for instance, what's the utility of the counterexamples built by openAI?

It seems you're fighting an hallucinated enemy.

that's an incredibly narrow view of what's happening.

it's still important. not everyone has access to 1 million USD. saying it "only" coat 2000 USD is highly misleading for the discussion and future. the concentration of power is a huge problem with AI.

Exactly! I have some many colleagues who typically say that they do "math for the beauty" while holding permanent research positions funded by the state.

He sounds as someone really pedantic who never understood what math is about or why it is important.

Chatgpt routinely cites and uses papers I don't have access to because they're behind a paywall. I don't think OpenAI is paying for all that copyright. That's in my opinion way more serious.

people here focus too much on the numbers, the exact values, the details, and end up missing completely the point.

so many people missing the point...

try to get out of the box

> managers will simply direct them

that Made me laugh. what you say won't happen. it's not that AI won't be sufficiently intelligent, it's that managers are not.

give some examples or real insights, otherwise it's difficult to take you seriously

and of everyone else, right? what service or product is only available to the US? Even with Chinese models lagging behind, the difference in capabilities is not much.

did you teach him the words? Mine has learned some just by context (he's still quite young though, barely 2 years old).

> Animals' intelligence have evolved for survival and designing experiments to test those are quite hard.

My conure is extremely intelligent at times, learning a trick at the second try or doing what I ask him immediately. Most of the time, though, he understands but decides to just ignore me.

> If iPads couldn't do anything, why would people buy them consistently?

It seems you're way overestimating how logical people's choices are.

But it's such an overkill. In any case, the question was a bit rhetorical, and highly subjective.

I'd add the pattern matching syntax. it's so natural for a mathematician.

> If they are using a PhD but their competitors are using

god what are these assumptions

ok, but everything depends on your numbers being correct. 99% improved efficiency seems kind of a way too optimistic prediction.

I'm no asking how to change it. And I don't think anyone has suggested that the market is some mysterious unreachable force. To be honest, at this point it's clear that you're being condescending and assuming people believe something foolish instead of trying to understand what they're actually saying.

we had local, small and noche business before. and even today.

the point again is that nobody says that certain mechanism of the market can have positive effects. the point is that way overestimated. we have extremely complex procedures that cost insanely amounts of money for stuff like ads. we could have a fraction of that power and people would still know about the products they need, etc.

Yes, it was clear that you wanted to refocus this as a moral problem of people. But that's irrelevant. The point of the guy above is that there is a system (the market) that creates certain incentives, and as a result, we have what we have. That's why I ask: what's your point? We still have all these problems.

it seems to me that the problem is quite the opposite. people believe that the "importance of allocation of capital" (good euphemism by the way) is WAY more important that it really is. do we need extra personalized ads in each of our machines? do we need instant financial trades and people optimizing instant transactions? We don't need a sophisticated AI to "inform" the customers.

there is a ton of things that are there simply because at some point people made money out of it, and then lobbied politicians to death to avoid regulation.