robotpepi

> This stuff reads as cope by scientists who spent their entire careers chasing these problems.

This is their only defense so far: deflecting valid criticism by suggesting, without evidence, that the scientific community is gripped by fear.

To be honest this doesn't feel as such impressive as the others. It was recently proven in 3 dimensions, so it could be "just" an extension of that. I haven't read the paper anyways so this is pure spectulation.

> but incorrect in macro/long run

That you don't know. Nobody knows what AI is going to be capable of in 2 years. It could continue improving, or not. There's no strong evidence in any direction. You're just ignoring what doesn't fit your narrative.

people here really struggle with metaphors.

> that is most people's experience with LLMs.

citation needed. my (university) students don't seem to learn as much as before.

your reasoning is sloppy. so confidently incorrect throughout this thread!

doesn't it use special relativity or some modern physics?

We don't know what models are going to be able to do in 2 years. If they don't improve much but people in charge simply decide to reduce the number of mathematicians, then we'll end up with a dead math community and no progress. That's obvious to everyone in position in power. Arguing that he's not emotional ready is very naive.

> All the arguments about the future mathematicians are imagined, and emotional.

Even if you don't like, at this moment, AI cannot replace mathematicians.

It doesn't make sense to expect such a positive reaction from the community when OpenAI publishes these papers without proper citations, scoop mathematicians, and copy-paste publicly available preprints. These are points I raised above and you didn't address. It is obvious that the reaction is distrust: OpenAI spends millions in prompting and subsequent self-publicity, but proper citation is too expensive?

> FWIW, in many online platforms, many actual mathematicians who referee papers, have said the quality of the papers are not outstanding, but they are still better than average.

I don't know what "online mathematicians" you're talking about, but I'm a professional one, do reviews and discuss regularly with other mathematicians (some of them of high profile); no one thinks that these AI papers are above average in terms of writing. This is what even in the most well-known online platforms has been repeated over and over. It seems like you're biased on this one.

It seems like you didn't answer the question.

Of course, everyone is curious about these results, we're mathematicians after all. But by incentives I refer to those things that really sustain the system: obtaining permanent positions, grants for future projects, ideas for PhD theses, etc.

> Do you disagree with this?

Absolutely. If they cared about properly citing the bibliography, sharing how their models work, etc, it would be so much easier to make an assessment of the situation, of what will be math in the future, and all those deeper questions. What we got instead? from those 400 papers, there are already 4 that have been found to be a copy of recent publicly-available papers. They spend millions for "the good of science", but they can't afford basic scientific ethics?

> but also presenting them with "enjoyable proofs". > Or maybe _these_ mathematicians are afraid that _other_ mathematicians will do it. Just elitism and gate keeping.

Ok, I don't see the point of discussing with you. It's clear that you decided what to believe in and no evidence will convince you that reality is more complex. The proof is that you ignored all the nuances expressed here by simply sticking to your simplistic interpretation, without any explanation of why such nuances are invalid.

> The alternative you are proposing implicitly is even crazier. OpenAI should not release a proof that is most likely correct so that it doesn’t burden others.

The alternative is that they do the work to properly present the results. They spend billions of dollars in AI training and inference but can't afford to even cite the literature properly? They're doing the bare minimum because they're inly interested in doing a PR stunt.