gewetensleegte

Speak for yourself :-)

One thing I've struggled with is the idea (perhaps a bit old now) that "it's just like having a junior engineer".

I don't really feel that managing a junior engineer is actually an improvement over writing my own code. At least for my own purposes (where satisfaction weighs a bit heavier than productivity).

But that's just me.

But for the people for whom it is an improvement, did you consider that you just got promoted to manager, without an increase in pay?

Because a promotion without increase in pay, is just empty and actually giving you more responsibilities without anything in return.

yeah I mean I watch them for the VFX commentary that I think is interesting not for their ethics, it's quite easy to cross that line as a big youtuber, you need to make a bit of an effort, instead they just make some questionable choices

fortunately, if you're feeling grumpy, you can use one of their biggest sponsors to talk to a highly professional personal therapist with the ease of installing an app which is definitely not preying on people with mental health issues /s

> the general feeling is that the core physics are well modeled (NS millennium problem not withstanding) and are not lacking in predictive power for useful applications

the NS problem is not physics and not predictive, it happens at scales smaller than molecules, so it doesn't occur in real fluids

also the "NS millennium prize problem" hasn't been solved until OpenAI actually gets it published in a Math journal, and I would say it has been ruined until they do

But they would need to employ human mathematicians for that.

Why is that even a question? That's how human mathematics has worked for ages, it's OpenAI breaking that chain, which needs to be severely questioned.

Because the real question is not whether anyone or anything built on other work, but whether any human can build on that work.

And so far, yet again, OpenAI has stopped just shy of that, instead creating math homework for mathematical geniuses while taking away their sense of discovery and accomplishment.

Other mathematicians have done the work of writing out and publishing these proofs, OpenAI has published Lean certificates.

The first type of work pushes the field of mathematics further, the second kind strip-mines the sense of discovery and accomplishment and replaces it with math homework for high level mathematicians, because in order for it to be useful, it still needs to be turned into a human readable proof.

It's imho not valid to say OpenAI is "building off" other mathematicians work, in the same way as humans, do.

> I think the scarier alternative may be OpenAI forever gating their super-frontier models, capturing a significant portion of the sciences and leveraging it for equity in businesses that build on scientific advances. e.g. "Hey CATL, how about you guve us 5% equity in exchange for a battery chemistry breakthrough our AI has found?".

surely if they were able to produce economically relevant breakthroughs, they wouldn't be burning compute on all of this

> solved the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem

as far as I know they still haven't claimed the prize, but rather stopped just short of it

they produced a Lean certificate for a math problem, but it's not "solving a Millennium Prize Problem" until they get a human readable version approved and published in a Math journal.

that's the rules for the Milennium Prize Problems.

I would personally sooner say they ruined the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize Problem, because the last part is important. Nobody in fluid dynamics research has any use for the result specifically because the breakdown singularity happens at a scale smaller than molecules, and they were dealing with that already. The Millennium Prize Problems exist to encourage mathematics, not to pull the rug on it.

> most of their subsequent breakthrough results in mathematics have come from a single prompt to a single AI agent, using approximately 3 hours of ChatGPT Pro-equivalent thinking compute per result on average.

but that would mean anyone could do it, right?

then why are these results coming from OpenAI all the time?

are you saying they're just better at prompting?

They first do have to show results that are actually useful to any human, though.

Right now, they just created busy work for real mathematicians while snatching away their feeling of accomplishment and discovery.

The only "use" for these results people can claim currently, all rest on the idea that surely better results will follow. Which is why it's being called strip-mining, because you can only keep that up for so long.

What if they just start churning out Lean proofs forever, and the only job left for mathematicians is turning them into human readable proofs, this is definitely a net negative for humanity, because then true progress of mathematics will slow down, because there are more people that like doing mathematics for discovery and accomplishment, than there are people that like doing math homework for the sake of it.

Also I would prefer a world where humans get to have this sense of discovery and accomplishment, instead of what they are trying to turn mathematics into.

Odds are about 50/50 what happens first, a galactic algorithm becoming useful, or OpenAI strip-mining a discovery from the field of Mathematics in a way that discovery benefits any human.

How wonderful, they created more busy work for real mathematicians without the actual pay-off of discovery.