> Why would someone contribute to an AI project without getting paid?
Because there exist people who are in deep love with mathematics, but weren't able to get a research position (or cannot afford to take a temporary position at some university for which they would even have to relocate).
So, your question is more like: why would someone play a video game without getting paid?
Those people generally care about learning, IME. "Why would someone play a video game without getting paid?", more like "Why would someone pay money to have a bot play a videogame without getting paid?". People IRL do, of course; they tend to be antisocial and make the game worse for everyone else.
For now, there's plenty of mathematics that hasn't been enshittified by AI bros.
For this work, you're either inserting coins into Codex, effectively donating money, or you're shoveling your way through the slop that the purchasers of that repo couldn't be bothered to clean up themselves.
>
For this work, you're either inserting coins into Codex, effectively donating money
Rather: as a necessary evil you give money to OpenAI/Anthropic because you really want to see (ideally fast) progress on this mathematical/algorithmic problem.
It is just going to help the capitalist of the world. Last time I checked many people are having $0 in their bank balance. Contributing is officially a scam for humanity.
True, but something is qualitatively different. Similar to open-source software projects, where people used to participate for the love of the game. Now that machines are doing the work, there is less human connection and feeling of community.
Why bother contributing when there's no one on the other side. There's value being produced, but the beneficiary is mainly the corporations who run the models. Even if the result eventually benefits society in general, the credit goes to them. Not that "credit" or "clout" means much practically, but there used to be emotional and social value for the people involved.
There is still emotional and social value. The AI is a tool in the hands of a competent operator.
You’re blinded by your hate for corporations, if you cannot see value here. The actual human who’s working on it responds, and you can’t help but make it about the AI that you believe is somehow only benefiting the corporation.
We need to design an AIGPL - you can only use the collective expertise that created our code to train a model if the model, its training data and potentially its output are also available via AIGPL.
Why not embrace nihilism now instead taking the long way to get there?
At the end of the day there is no reason, there is no purpose but the one you make for yourself. The universe doesn't care and will slowly wind itself down to thermal noise.
If they want to make a lean solution and publish it then they can because that's what they want to do.
And if you're breaking this much already, the future is going to be really really hard on you. You are not ready for what is coming.
You keep saying this human connection thing, but it has no bearing on moving the frontier forward. A lot of these problems have remained unsolved for hundreds of years. What is your claim here, that they should remain unsolved artificially for 100 more years so that human mathematicians can have careers and community?
Either you care about advancing the frontier of knowledge or you don't. If you care, then you should use every tool available to you. If you don't, then society has no obligation to fund your personal hobby interests. Calling this "selling out" is ridiculous.
Mostly because it's been a social project where humans collaborate with each other. As AI usage expands, though, I increasingly don't expect to be contributing without getting paid.
It's a social project where humans collaborate because they want useful tools, and sharing the useful tools they built with others gets their own tools improved. The reciprocation of sharing knowledge and knowledge artifacts compounds. The advent of AI does not change this formula one bit, if anything AI increases the compounding factor. You are of course free to do as you wish with this new reality.
> Why would someone contribute to an AI project without getting paid?
Because there exist people who are in deep love with mathematics, but weren't able to get a research position (or cannot afford to take a temporary position at some university for which they would even have to relocate).
So, your question is more like: why would someone play a video game without getting paid?
Those people generally care about learning, IME. "Why would someone play a video game without getting paid?", more like "Why would someone pay money to have a bot play a videogame without getting paid?". People IRL do, of course; they tend to be antisocial and make the game worse for everyone else.
Notoriety also has value, not that that is OPs motivation, but worth noting
I wouldn't know, I get weekly drops.
For now, there's plenty of mathematics that hasn't been enshittified by AI bros.
For this work, you're either inserting coins into Codex, effectively donating money, or you're shoveling your way through the slop that the purchasers of that repo couldn't be bothered to clean up themselves.
> For this work, you're either inserting coins into Codex, effectively donating money
Rather: as a necessary evil you give money to OpenAI/Anthropic because you really want to see (ideally fast) progress on this mathematical/algorithmic problem.
4 replies →
It is just going to help the capitalist of the world. Last time I checked many people are having $0 in their bank balance. Contributing is officially a scam for humanity.
For some people the "love of the game" trumps economics
3 replies →
They're all equally contributing to mathematics?
True, but something is qualitatively different. Similar to open-source software projects, where people used to participate for the love of the game. Now that machines are doing the work, there is less human connection and feeling of community.
Why bother contributing when there's no one on the other side. There's value being produced, but the beneficiary is mainly the corporations who run the models. Even if the result eventually benefits society in general, the credit goes to them. Not that "credit" or "clout" means much practically, but there used to be emotional and social value for the people involved.
There is still emotional and social value. The AI is a tool in the hands of a competent operator.
You’re blinded by your hate for corporations, if you cannot see value here. The actual human who’s working on it responds, and you can’t help but make it about the AI that you believe is somehow only benefiting the corporation.
11 replies →
We need to design an AIGPL - you can only use the collective expertise that created our code to train a model if the model, its training data and potentially its output are also available via AIGPL.
Why not embrace nihilism now instead taking the long way to get there?
At the end of the day there is no reason, there is no purpose but the one you make for yourself. The universe doesn't care and will slowly wind itself down to thermal noise.
If they want to make a lean solution and publish it then they can because that's what they want to do.
And if you're breaking this much already, the future is going to be really really hard on you. You are not ready for what is coming.
You keep saying this human connection thing, but it has no bearing on moving the frontier forward. A lot of these problems have remained unsolved for hundreds of years. What is your claim here, that they should remain unsolved artificially for 100 more years so that human mathematicians can have careers and community?
4 replies →
This is why mathematics are having serious discussions about math without mathematics, right?
The people using AI should be paid well enough that they can justify selling out their peers.
Either you care about advancing the frontier of knowledge or you don't. If you care, then you should use every tool available to you. If you don't, then society has no obligation to fund your personal hobby interests. Calling this "selling out" is ridiculous.
5 replies →
What does AI have to do with it?
Why are you here engaging with humans, if you could ask AI to explain?
Why would someone contribute to open source without getting paid?
Mostly because it's been a social project where humans collaborate with each other. As AI usage expands, though, I increasingly don't expect to be contributing without getting paid.
It's a social project where humans collaborate because they want useful tools, and sharing the useful tools they built with others gets their own tools improved. The reciprocation of sharing knowledge and knowledge artifacts compounds. The advent of AI does not change this formula one bit, if anything AI increases the compounding factor. You are of course free to do as you wish with this new reality.
1 reply →
Why would someone help solve cancer if AI worked on it?
This isn't solving cancer. The payoff is, supposedly, the understanding that the purchasers of that repo didn't care enough to bother with.
Also, I fucking hope society values cancer research enough to pay the researchers. If we don't, maybe we deserve what we prioritize.