← Back to context

Comment by schleck8

1 day ago

Levent Alpöge (Anthropic mathematician) comment on the significance:

> Sure, mathematical history features a lot of incredible developments, like the invention of proof, zero, or the computer, and on the great problems our progress has been over timelines measured in decades or centuries. Obviously this technology didn’t appear today, but blurring our eyes a bit to combine the past ten years, with today a measurement of those developments, there is nothing comparable.

46 comments

schleck8

Reply
baoooooooooooo  21 hours ago

Crikey it’s a pretty charitable vibe given the whole Navier-Stokes thing, OpenAI trying to stiff him out of co-authorship. I guess any of that sentiment is outweighed by a sense of optimism for where this goes

  • lifeisloving  20 hours ago

    Where does it go? Machines owned by 10 people robbing us of the joy of discovery and the fruits of our labor... for what?

    They certainly arent going to give you that cure for cancer, if it were to ever come.

    • palmotea  16 hours ago

      > Where does it go? Machines owned by 10 people robbing us of the joy of discovery and the fruits of our labor... for what?

      For what? So some guys can be richer and more powerful. What could possibly be more important than themselves? You? Your future? We're nothing, and have been told to be excited and curious about our coming obsolescence and powerlessness.

    • mattlondon  18 hours ago

      > Machines owned by 10 people robbing us of the joy of discovery and the fruits of our labor... for what?

      This happened to software engineers already. Mathematics isn't special.

      1 reply →

    • sowhat1  15 hours ago

      You don’t want to see Elon get to 100 trillion and start a sex slave colony on Mars? What are you crazy?

    • Marha01  18 hours ago

      > They certainly arent going to give you that cure for cancer, if it were to ever come.

      Conspiracy bullshit. You cannot keep something like an effective cure for cancer under wraps. There is no plausible logic how that would not leak sooner or later.

      6 replies →

    • cma  18 hours ago

      Trying to slow down this for the joy of discovery is a deeply anti-intellectual position. I think that position is similar to when everyday people get mad about the minor spending on the NSF, picking apart people who study beetles on Fox News with no context etc.

      There are real safety concerns with AI that can be made very convincingly though.

      4 replies →

  • sebzim4500  10 hours ago

    >OpenAI trying to stiff him out of co-authorship

    Did that actually happen? The emails that were originally released had OpenAI refusing to list him as a coauthor on OpenAI's paper but they suggested he should release what he already had done ahead of OpenAI's release. There was certainly nothing to suggest he should be robbed of credit for his own work.

    Has anything new come to light since, or is this just another game of Chinese whispers?

    • dannyw  7 hours ago

      And if he did release what he had, I imagine OpenAI would probably have cited him in their paper.

      They refused to put him as a coauthor; which is… standard practice, because he wasn’t a coauthor.