3 ms·

You have conveniently left out the spirit of the mathematicians communique and are only trying to argue its letter which is what makes me think you are being di

You have conveniently left out the spirit of the mathematicians communique and are only trying to argue its letter which is what makes me think you are being disingenuously clueless or cluelessly disingenuous. To repeat myself again, the crux of the problem is; AI companies are stealing our hard-won lifelong research findings, which we were already sharing freely, without attribution/credit and building upon them without informed consent nor compensation. The AI companies are robbing the mathematicians by not involving them in major decisions about solving the leading/promising research problems in their domain. They are the ones who have identified the problems, its importance, promising approaches of attack etc. which have all been freely shared and which the AI companies have used to build their models. For example, in the Navier-Stokes case, OpenAI could have easily informed the mathematicians like so, "hey, your research approach looks promising, do you have any objections to us using your research in our models and throwing a lot of compute resources at it so that we can finally solve it?" Every mathematician would have jumped at the chance since that is what he was doing anyway but at a small scale and far slower pace. Instead OpenAI went behind the mathematicians back while building upon his and others work without attribution/credit nor compensation. This is plagiarism, cheating and despicable behaviour and should not be tolerated by anybody.

stbede 19d ago
Yes. Everything I've said and want to say is about this letter. Let me try to summarize this discussion in a way that an overly obsequious AI would never dare: - I argue that the arguments in the letter are bad. - You mysteriously assign me homework on the topic of human motivation. - Confused, I reiterate the points made in the letter, and I make arguments against them - You ignore my arguments, call names, and then defend the letter by making points that the letter doesn't make. - I ignore your points, because they aren't the points made in the letter. And my original post was about why the letter was misguided. - You call names. You feel like your points are valid. You then claim that the letter is valid because your points are valid. - I keep disagreeing with the letter. - You call names again, because why am I so obsessed with talking about the letter. I must be an idiot, or an evil lying phony, or an evil lying idiot-phony because I keep bringing the conversation back to the letter on a thread about the letter.
- rramadass 19d ago
  Hmm...; I had imagined i was interacting with somebody who could understand the larger picture given only the key points. Apparently that was wrong and i need to spell out every detail. I didn't call you names but implied that you had an agenda and were masking it by trying to debate the literal words in the original communique from 25 fields medalists which was written to be politically correct. Apparently asking you to "focus on the spirit and not the letter" of the communique was too much. So i highlighted it, repeated myself three/four times and yet nothing seems to have worked to aid comprehension. I point to a most important and relevant psychological theory viz. SDT, which explains how one's behaviour is influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and ask you to think about how they might explain why the mathematicians are angry at the current situation of AI companies shafting them. I even used specific terminology from SDT to highlight its applicability in this case. Apparently this is too much "home work" (and needed thinking) and one needs to spoon-feed everything without assuming any human intelligence/curiosity/initiative at the other end. It seems my attempt to show the larger context and situate it in actual psychological research has been of no avail though not for want of trying.
  - stbede 18d ago
    You and I aren't having the same conversation. You want to psychologize people's motivations, including my own, which is interesting to speculate about but off topic. I want to discuss the arguments made in the letter, the arguments that 25 Fields medalists actually signed on to. I am capable of having a conversation with you on a great many topics. What you aren't capable of, apparently, is forcing me to want to have the one you want to have. As far as calling names: "Your comment is ... disingenuous." "you are being disingenuously clueless or cluelessly disingenuous." and now: "I had imagined i was interacting with somebody who could understand the larger picture"
    - rramadass 18d ago
      Nope, you need to engage in a root-cause conversation which is the key here. Just focusing on the words in a letter which as i already pointed out is couched in politically-correct terms due to etiquette is meaningless. There is a lot unsaid there which you have to tease-out by reading between the lines. It was written in response to OpenAI's behaviour (Tristan Buckmaster himself called what they did as "malpractice" in one of his tweets) but looking at the larger picture of AI in Mathematics. The key phrase from the letter is; ... Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions. ... The inference should be clear. Hence we need to start with the underlying psychological motivations and then see how it explains observed behaviour. And it is not even complicated but somewhat obvious. The fact that you (many others) refuse to address this is why i question your (and theirs) motivations/agenda. As regards your last few lines regarding "calling names" they are all only w.r.t. to the issues being discussed and are just rhetorical/descriptive judgements on your comments.

stbede 19d ago

Yes. Everything I've said and want to say is about this letter. Let me try to summarize this discussion in a way that an overly obsequious AI would never dare: - I argue that the arguments in the letter are bad. - You mysteriously assign me homework on the topic of human motivation. - Confused, I reiterate the points made in the letter, and I make arguments against them - You ignore my arguments, call names, and then defend the letter by making points that the letter doesn't make. - I ignore your points, because they aren't the points made in the letter. And my original post was about why the letter was misguided. - You call names. You feel like your points are valid. You then claim that the letter is valid because your points are valid. - I keep disagreeing with the letter. - You call names again, because why am I so obsessed with talking about the letter. I must be an idiot, or an evil lying phony, or an evil lying idiot-phony because I keep bringing the conversation back to the letter on a thread about the letter.

rramadass 19d ago
Hmm...; I had imagined i was interacting with somebody who could understand the larger picture given only the key points. Apparently that was wrong and i need to spell out every detail. I didn't call you names but implied that you had an agenda and were masking it by trying to debate the literal words in the original communique from 25 fields medalists which was written to be politically correct. Apparently asking you to "focus on the spirit and not the letter" of the communique was too much. So i highlighted it, repeated myself three/four times and yet nothing seems to have worked to aid comprehension. I point to a most important and relevant psychological theory viz. SDT, which explains how one's behaviour is influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and ask you to think about how they might explain why the mathematicians are angry at the current situation of AI companies shafting them. I even used specific terminology from SDT to highlight its applicability in this case. Apparently this is too much "home work" (and needed thinking) and one needs to spoon-feed everything without assuming any human intelligence/curiosity/initiative at the other end. It seems my attempt to show the larger context and situate it in actual psychological research has been of no avail though not for want of trying.
- stbede 18d ago
  You and I aren't having the same conversation. You want to psychologize people's motivations, including my own, which is interesting to speculate about but off topic. I want to discuss the arguments made in the letter, the arguments that 25 Fields medalists actually signed on to. I am capable of having a conversation with you on a great many topics. What you aren't capable of, apparently, is forcing me to want to have the one you want to have. As far as calling names: "Your comment is ... disingenuous." "you are being disingenuously clueless or cluelessly disingenuous." and now: "I had imagined i was interacting with somebody who could understand the larger picture"
  - rramadass 18d ago
    Nope, you need to engage in a root-cause conversation which is the key here. Just focusing on the words in a letter which as i already pointed out is couched in politically-correct terms due to etiquette is meaningless. There is a lot unsaid there which you have to tease-out by reading between the lines. It was written in response to OpenAI's behaviour (Tristan Buckmaster himself called what they did as "malpractice" in one of his tweets) but looking at the larger picture of AI in Mathematics. The key phrase from the letter is; ... Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions. ... The inference should be clear. Hence we need to start with the underlying psychological motivations and then see how it explains observed behaviour. And it is not even complicated but somewhat obvious. The fact that you (many others) refuse to address this is why i question your (and theirs) motivations/agenda. As regards your last few lines regarding "calling names" they are all only w.r.t. to the issues being discussed and are just rhetorical/descriptive judgements on your comments.