Comment by drivebyhooting

10 hours ago

If we put aside the idea of credit for a moment, it sounds like human/AI collaboration is indeed super charging discovery.

"Discovery" is not a goal in itself. I could launch a project to find out how many people in the United States have names such that if you assign numbers to every character and then sum the values, the sum works out to 72. It's discovery, but it's useless unless it has some higher goal.

The labs are attacking these problems as a demonstration of capabilities, spending more money on the demos than any mathematician will ever see in their entire life. They don't care if the findings have any other value to anyone. Mathematicians have very different objectives for their work.

  • Right, mathematicians care about clout and tenure, which is a much higher purpose.

    • I don't know about you, but if I apply myself fully to a problem and study it to the point where I'm literally one of the world's experts on it and then some assholes in Silicon Valley take my research and claim it for themselves, I will probably not feel too great about that...

It looks to me more like they made a math engine that can sift through a huge number of combinations, most them absurd, to prove a statement. Just like a chess engine, but for math.

At least that's what I get from the NS result, they got from a point close to the solution to the solution by making it churn through 10 million bucks of compute.

If the allegations are true, I can't see that collaboration lasting. Unfortunately, researches need to earn a living too, and being front run by a lab for everything you do isn't going to pay the bills.