GPerson

You’re free to generate an arbitrary set of axioms and study the consequences. Zero people will care. People care about doing mathematics in a community, working toward recognizable goals.

The infinitude of mathematics doesn’t matter. What matters if mathematics doesn’t change radically is the size of the database of AI results relative to the potential output of a human lifetime.

You don’t actually understand what argument from authority is. There’s an actual reason the “authority” here is being appealed to which is not just their authority. You don’t respect people who know more than you, but you should still read Terence Tao’s mathstodon posts on stripmining mathematics.

Kevin, once a few years or a decade or two from now the world has the ultra massive Lean database which comprises completions of all mathematical theories, and combinations of these, and all the known modes of generalization of these, why will the world fund mathematicians? Genuine question. I’d like to hear your view since you’re one of the main reasons this is going to happen, and it seems like an obvious existential threat to this whole activity.

Buzzard is biased by being the main promoter of lean. His characterization of other mathematicians as being in an grieving process is disrespectful. He’s also not a therapist and shouldn’t present himself as such.

Less wrongers have this grating way of using pseudoscientific language that just comes across as extremely pretentious.

First of all if you think you had discovered something in a pre-AI world, there’s a 99% chance it’s some triviality or wrong. Mathematics is extremely rich and people spend their entire lives thinking about it. Undergrads can’t comprehend what the grad students are studying. Grad students can’t comprehend what the post docs are doing. And it just goes and goes.

In a post-AI world there’s a mountain of high quality work being published by people who actually know what’s going on. You can probably make a discovery with chatgpt right now, but why should someone who’s got a ton of things to do already read your article? You’re free to put it online, but why should you be free to force someone to read something?

Second of all, it’s extremely aggravating to read all these software people criticizing mathematicians, who almost universally have low salaries and who chose to go into this profession because they care about contributing to human knowledge.

I’m sorry you feel like such a victim but it’s a topic in which having an awareness of how the mathematics culture works matters, which honestly should go without saying. You’re pitting yourself, someone with no understanding of the system, in direct contrast to someone who understands the system very well. You have no evidence for your view either. You’re just contributing noise.

To all ordinary people, OpenAI sought these people out and asked for their opinions on how to stop harming the math community.

Ordinary people just run with whatever two minute understanding propaganda delivers to them and then settle into hard opinions.

Right we agree.

It’s not surprising the AI bros on this website don’t get the bit here. It’s a gambit against people who want to create AI that has consciousness and against personhood for AI activists. The logic is, if you do this, the AI will be tortured. Many philosophers have argued that when AI is given rates humanity will inevitably end. These guys don’t actually believe the AI is conscious.

They’re doing it not because they believe the AI is conscious but because personhood for AI activists do.

It’s a gambit against people who seek to give AI consciousness and personhood, which is a net positive.

The most powerful basilisk is jroko’s anyway.