Comment by lioeters
19 hours ago
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.
David Harvey, the author of the paper linked here, hasn't even read the paper on the topic. He says as much in the paper, directly. The repo linked in response shows little sign of human authorship.
Has anyone actually gone through and fully understood the contents? My bet would be that nobody has looked, let alone understood, anything in there.
So, is collaboration just paying for more tokens, or is it doing the human understanding that the authors couldn't be arsed to do?
Either way, I hope nobody is foolish enough to fall for it.
> Has anyone actually gone through and fully understood the contents?
It happened before. For example in Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem it took like half a year until someone found an error, another year until Wiles and Taylor fixed the proof and another half year until it was reviewed and published. Add a few years until it was widely understood (where widely is a small set of people that excludes me for now). Now there are even shorter proof.
The new thing here is that we are seen the internal discussion published online. Also, the chatbots like to make long pdf, so expect to see a pile of intermediate pdf created by chatbots+humans until we get a nice proof that is widely understood (this is more related to my area, I have a hope that I may understand it).
If you know something to be true, without knowing why, does that reduce the value of said truth to zero? And what if that truth has positive effects on your ability to invent and leverage technology, treat/cure disease, etc? Would you still say it is of no value and people are “falling for it”?
This is called faith, and as strange as it may sound, in a few decades this kind of faith in the machine will be commonplace, because it will prove its utility over and over and over again, and save mountains of human effort in the process. In 3-7 years we’ll start to see major practical applications from AI-led advances.
As a second-order effect we may even see the rise of an actual religion around AI. I’m not saying these are all positive effects, but it’s what I see happening - and like all technological revolutions there will be a huge number of positive effects alongside some deeply disturbing developments.
8 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?
What's the point of solving them if not to serve people? How much harm are you interested in doing for answers that the people supposedly interested in them didn't even read?
It will serve people over a much longer time span though for use in whatever machinery ends up giving us something approaching a utopia.
2 replies →