4 ms·

The pudding is in the proof. The field is mathematics, the proof can be rigorously verified. If there is a flaw, OpenAI is out to lunch. If the proof is valid,

by glitchc 22d ago

The pudding is in the proof. The field is mathematics, the proof can be rigorously verified. If there is a flaw, OpenAI is out to lunch. If the proof is valid, OpenAI has produced something new.

amelius 22d ago
Did you read what they said? The question is now if OAI produced something new or just stole the researchers' good ideas.
- jsLavaGoat 22d ago
  Name one discovery ever that didn't depend on someone else's work.
  - amelius 22d ago
    Most discoveries did not happen by someone looking in someone else's notebooks without them knowing.
- glitchc 22d ago
  You seem to be unfamiliar about how research works. It's common to make an incremental advancement while citing prior work. The vast majority of papers out there fall into this bucket. Did the AI make incremental progress? Yes. Did it cite prior art? After some nudging, yes. It seems to me the academics are upset that AI scooped them. But scooping is a time-honored tradition between researchers. First to print and all that. In a nutshell, they are upset that they lost out on a publication. I will also point out for those unaware that any mathematics that is produced is automatically part of the public domain and can be used freely in derivative works. It is not a protected intellectual class like other works of art.
  - fg137 22d ago
    > But scooping is a time-honored tradition between researchers. Provided that it's properly accredited. And definitely not for others' unpublished work -- that's despised upon if not an academic integrity issue. People even point out that you should add a reference to certain papers during the peer review process.
    - warkdarrior 22d ago
      Scientific papers many times have citations of the kind "private communication." APA has a style guideline so certainly not looked down on: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/personal-communications https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/...

by glitchc 22d ago

The pudding is in the proof. The field is mathematics, the proof can be rigorously verified. If there is a flaw, OpenAI is out to lunch. If the proof is valid, OpenAI has produced something new.

amelius 22d ago

Did you read what they said? The question is now if OAI produced something new or just stole the researchers' good ideas.

jsLavaGoat 22d ago
Name one discovery ever that didn't depend on someone else's work.
- amelius 22d ago
  Most discoveries did not happen by someone looking in someone else's notebooks without them knowing.
glitchc 22d ago
You seem to be unfamiliar about how research works. It's common to make an incremental advancement while citing prior work. The vast majority of papers out there fall into this bucket. Did the AI make incremental progress? Yes. Did it cite prior art? After some nudging, yes. It seems to me the academics are upset that AI scooped them. But scooping is a time-honored tradition between researchers. First to print and all that. In a nutshell, they are upset that they lost out on a publication. I will also point out for those unaware that any mathematics that is produced is automatically part of the public domain and can be used freely in derivative works. It is not a protected intellectual class like other works of art.
- fg137 22d ago
  > But scooping is a time-honored tradition between researchers. Provided that it's properly accredited. And definitely not for others' unpublished work -- that's despised upon if not an academic integrity issue. People even point out that you should add a reference to certain papers during the peer review process.
  - warkdarrior 22d ago
    Scientific papers many times have citations of the kind "private communication." APA has a style guideline so certainly not looked down on: https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/personal-communications https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/citations/...