2 ms·

I might want to. Would you explain its relevance here and make a pitch for me doing so.

by stbede 14d ago

rramadass 14d ago
The relevance can be seen from the second link above (the review of the book) which highlights the essential points viz. the importance of Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation. It is short enough that you can easily go through it. Then apply it to understand why mathematicians are angry.
- stbede 14d ago
  I don't understand why you can't just articulate the point yourself. It took me a while to guess what you were getting at. Could it be the quote: Our egos are powerful things. They want to believe that we’re each better than we are, and we want to believe that we’ve mastered our chosen areas – that we’re the best. Whether that’s objectively verifiable or just wishful thinking isn’t the point. If we want to motivate people, we’ll give them ways to become masters or, at the very least, allow them to feel competent in what they’re doing. In which case, yes, there is a loss of that source of motivation. And that's coming for us all - or rather it's coming for some of us in most professions. Most people are perfectly average in their chosen areas and never got the satisfaction of being at the top of their profession. Yet we still go to work. I imagine it will take some getting use to for Fields Medalists, but I think the average grad student that happened to just love mathematics and never aspired to be a medalist will still like doing math. Magnus Carlsen still became the best chess player ever even though AI's have been better than humans for decades now. Most sources of intrinsic motivation are unaffected by these developments in AI. It may be the case that extrinsic motivations may be harmed by all of this if there's less money for mathematicians in the math community. The letter lists a lot of reasons to like how the math community does math, and I don't see any real reason they can't just keep doing math that way. Honestly, I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. Or the realization you're hoping I'll have.
  - rramadass 13d ago
    The point viz. understanding intrinsic/extrinsic motivations and how they shape one's behaviour (i.e. SDT) is a nuanced one and so i wanted you to get an overview of it and then see for yourself how applicable it is to the OpenAI/Mathematicians Navier-Stokes issue. Also see my other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695418 I suggest you go through the SDT wikipedia entry and note in particular how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are internalised and integrated into a coherent sense of self. This is true for all humans and worth a study to understand what motivates us to do what we do. To repeat myself from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49680925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49680925 "the AI companies behaviour, threatens everybody's Autonomy, nullifies their Mastery/Competence and robs them of Purpose/Relatedness/Belongingness. Nobody should accept this." Mathematicians will keep doing research with or without AI. But so far they have been doing it in a free environment where there were unsaid-rules/ethics/morals being followed; the most central of which is "do not steal my work; if you use my work give me credit and compensation (if you make money off of it)". This takes care of both one's intrinsic and extrinsic motivation needs which is why all of our scientific practices, societal/economic rules etc. are setup on a system of incentives appropriate to their domain eg. for a researcher doing something original and winning the Nobel Prize/Fields Medal is far more important than making money while for a Business CEO making money is everything. In the case of Navier-Stokes problem, Name and Fame were everything and Money was a lesser goal. OpenAI with their despicable behaviour have robbed the mathematicians off the above by going behind their backs, without giving them credit and simply throwing a huge amount of resources at the problem. This should not be tolerated.
    - stbede 13d ago
      I think that's just oblivious to what mathematicians actually care about when it comes to "name and fame." Basically no one outside of the mathematics community and its periphery knows who someone like Terrence Tao is, and those outside academia who do know who he is probably don't know one single result that he's proved. The most famous mathematician in America may be James Stewart for authoring the calculus textbook. Mathematicians do not get fame amongst the general public. They want fame within mathematics. If the mathematical community identifies Luis Martínez-Zoroa or Buckmaster and Alpöge as the last human in the chain before NS was solved, and internally attaches their names to it, that will be enough for most mathematicians. Mathematicians write the textbooks. Some other mathematician is still free to consolidate OpenAI's proof into a better proof, put it in a popular graduate textbook, and gives it the name "The Martínez-Zoroa Theorem", and then whenever an undergraduate PDE textbook mentions NS, they say, "according to The Martínez-Zoroa Theorem...", and then Martínez-Zoroa gets a Fields Medal for his contributions to his theorem. The case you're making seems to be that no one in the mathematics community would feel satisfied with that because at the end of the day everyone would know Martínez-Zoroa didn't solve NS. OpenAI did. And it wouldn't matter if Open AI paid to erect a 50 foot statue of Martínez-Zoroa in front of a museum of the history of NS in which every single mathematician who ever contributed anything to NS was publicized and celebrated and glorified and deified and credited and thanked. It wouldn't matter because maybe what mathematicians actually wanted wasn't credit for what they did do but that at the end of the museum tour the final display would talk about the human who solved NS. No matter how much credit you give mathematicians, no mathematician will now ever be able to claim "I solved NS" because OpenAI beat them to it. If that's the case, then the letter is misguided. It's pretending that the problem is that AI is misaligned with the goals of mathematics. That's not the problem. The problem is that no matter how ethically it behaves, humans are going to be pissed that there is a non-human thing that is better at math than them. And I'm also pissed that we are creating this thing that's going to be better than humans at a whole bunch of things and it's going to cause a bunch of people to outsource their humanity to an AI. I'm pissed about that. But I'm not trying to pretend that AI can somehow eventually win me over if only it was more aligned with me when I know full well that its alignment has nothing to do with my loathing of it.

I might want to. Would you explain its relevance here and make a pitch for me doing so.

by stbede 14d ago

I might want to. Would you explain its relevance here and make a pitch for me doing so.

The relevance can be seen from the second link above (the review of the book) which highlights the essential points viz. the importance of Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Motivation. It is short enough that you can easily go through it. Then apply it to understand why mathematicians are angry.

stbede 14d ago
I don't understand why you can't just articulate the point yourself. It took me a while to guess what you were getting at. Could it be the quote: Our egos are powerful things. They want to believe that we’re each better than we are, and we want to believe that we’ve mastered our chosen areas – that we’re the best. Whether that’s objectively verifiable or just wishful thinking isn’t the point. If we want to motivate people, we’ll give them ways to become masters or, at the very least, allow them to feel competent in what they’re doing. In which case, yes, there is a loss of that source of motivation. And that's coming for us all - or rather it's coming for some of us in most professions. Most people are perfectly average in their chosen areas and never got the satisfaction of being at the top of their profession. Yet we still go to work. I imagine it will take some getting use to for Fields Medalists, but I think the average grad student that happened to just love mathematics and never aspired to be a medalist will still like doing math. Magnus Carlsen still became the best chess player ever even though AI's have been better than humans for decades now. Most sources of intrinsic motivation are unaffected by these developments in AI. It may be the case that extrinsic motivations may be harmed by all of this if there's less money for mathematicians in the math community. The letter lists a lot of reasons to like how the math community does math, and I don't see any real reason they can't just keep doing math that way. Honestly, I still don't understand the point you're trying to make. Or the realization you're hoping I'll have.
- rramadass 13d ago
  The point viz. understanding intrinsic/extrinsic motivations and how they shape one's behaviour (i.e. SDT) is a nuanced one and so i wanted you to get an overview of it and then see for yourself how applicable it is to the OpenAI/Mathematicians Navier-Stokes issue. Also see my other comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695418 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49695418 I suggest you go through the SDT wikipedia entry and note in particular how intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are internalised and integrated into a coherent sense of self. This is true for all humans and worth a study to understand what motivates us to do what we do. To repeat myself from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49680925 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49680925 "the AI companies behaviour, threatens everybody's Autonomy, nullifies their Mastery/Competence and robs them of Purpose/Relatedness/Belongingness. Nobody should accept this." Mathematicians will keep doing research with or without AI. But so far they have been doing it in a free environment where there were unsaid-rules/ethics/morals being followed; the most central of which is "do not steal my work; if you use my work give me credit and compensation (if you make money off of it)". This takes care of both one's intrinsic and extrinsic motivation needs which is why all of our scientific practices, societal/economic rules etc. are setup on a system of incentives appropriate to their domain eg. for a researcher doing something original and winning the Nobel Prize/Fields Medal is far more important than making money while for a Business CEO making money is everything. In the case of Navier-Stokes problem, Name and Fame were everything and Money was a lesser goal. OpenAI with their despicable behaviour have robbed the mathematicians off the above by going behind their backs, without giving them credit and simply throwing a huge amount of resources at the problem. This should not be tolerated.
  - stbede 13d ago
    I think that's just oblivious to what mathematicians actually care about when it comes to "name and fame." Basically no one outside of the mathematics community and its periphery knows who someone like Terrence Tao is, and those outside academia who do know who he is probably don't know one single result that he's proved. The most famous mathematician in America may be James Stewart for authoring the calculus textbook. Mathematicians do not get fame amongst the general public. They want fame within mathematics. If the mathematical community identifies Luis Martínez-Zoroa or Buckmaster and Alpöge as the last human in the chain before NS was solved, and internally attaches their names to it, that will be enough for most mathematicians. Mathematicians write the textbooks. Some other mathematician is still free to consolidate OpenAI's proof into a better proof, put it in a popular graduate textbook, and gives it the name "The Martínez-Zoroa Theorem", and then whenever an undergraduate PDE textbook mentions NS, they say, "according to The Martínez-Zoroa Theorem...", and then Martínez-Zoroa gets a Fields Medal for his contributions to his theorem. The case you're making seems to be that no one in the mathematics community would feel satisfied with that because at the end of the day everyone would know Martínez-Zoroa didn't solve NS. OpenAI did. And it wouldn't matter if Open AI paid to erect a 50 foot statue of Martínez-Zoroa in front of a museum of the history of NS in which every single mathematician who ever contributed anything to NS was publicized and celebrated and glorified and deified and credited and thanked. It wouldn't matter because maybe what mathematicians actually wanted wasn't credit for what they did do but that at the end of the museum tour the final display would talk about the human who solved NS. No matter how much credit you give mathematicians, no mathematician will now ever be able to claim "I solved NS" because OpenAI beat them to it. If that's the case, then the letter is misguided. It's pretending that the problem is that AI is misaligned with the goals of mathematics. That's not the problem. The problem is that no matter how ethically it behaves, humans are going to be pissed that there is a non-human thing that is better at math than them. And I'm also pissed that we are creating this thing that's going to be better than humans at a whole bunch of things and it's going to cause a bunch of people to outsource their humanity to an AI. I'm pissed about that. But I'm not trying to pretend that AI can somehow eventually win me over if only it was more aligned with me when I know full well that its alignment has nothing to do with my loathing of it.