3 ms·
This pattern of argument keeps repeating in every place. Pro tech people: technology removes bottlenecks. Sometimes we use those bottlenecks as a side effect t
by simianwords 16d ago
This pattern of argument keeps repeating in every place.
Pro tech people: technology removes bottlenecks. Sometimes we use those bottlenecks as a side effect to build muscle and so on. But removing bottlenecks gives us much higher degrees of freedom. It is up to us to coordinate and make use of the technology.
Anti tech people: bottlenecks are fundamentally useful. They should remain and technology shouldn't remove those so easily. Humans cannot coordinate as well when the bottlenecks are removed, so lets not remove them so quickly.
- varjag 16d agoI can only suggest reading the letter with open mind and literally, without uncharitable bias towards the authors or conspiracy mindset.
- simianwords 16d agoIts not a conspiracy. Its 25 fields medalists who think exactly like how I put it. Ideally, they can just take whatever the technology gives as soon as possible and use it. They don't want it because they don't think the community can rearrange and coordinate such that they can make use of the new found degrees of freedom. That's literally all there is to it - they don't believe in the rearrangement.
- varjag 16d agoI can only envy the insight you have into thought processes of 25 fields medalists. Wish I could have that.
- simianwords 16d agoyou must have been so smug writing this. But I wanted to engage in a discussion.
- varjag 16d agoFrom your other replies it's clear you still haven't read the letter. There is little to discuss so far.
- frozenseven 16d agoDiscussion is indeed impossible if you're trying to insist that this garbage anti-AI letter is anything other than just that.
- neuroticnews25 16d agoFWIW it didn't sound accusatory to me, it made me think the anti tech people might have a point.
- GPerson 16d agoIt’s not even anti-tech though. Terence Tao signed it. The commenter above reduces the conversation to a false dichotomy.
- neuroticnews25 16d agoAnti immediate-tech-progess-as-primary-objective?
- GPerson 16d agoI don’t think the letter is even anti-tech progress. I also don’t think the tech companies are primarily pro-math progress (not that I think you think that). It’s primarily “anti-unnecessarily-destroy-the-human-systems-of-mathematics-just-for-benchmarks-and-marketing” > … the push by AI companies to solve mathematical problems as a benchmark is detrimental to the science of mathematics, and to the mathematical community. The goals of the AI companies and the goals of the mathematical community are severely misaligned.
- piker 16d agoCounterpoint: I'm not anti tech at all. In fact, I sell an AI harness for legal. I think you've set up a false dichotomy. I'd propose to you the middle ground that a lot of us are concerned that VC-backed AI slop is "solving" problems in indigestible ways that hollow out the core. This applies in OSS as well as mathematics.
- simianwords 16d agoPlease help me understand this and I'm asking this in good faith. Why can't OpenAI publish whatever it wants. And the math community can use it or not use it. Fundamentally OpenAI's solutions are high signal - they are incentivised to not deliberately mislead people. Let the individuals in math community choose to read it or understand it? If OpenAI wants to publish something, let them do it in the current channels using peer review using whatever time is required. What's wrong with this? The math community thinks this will destroy previously unwritten ways of prestige allocation and remove incentives that used to exist. I say that the community can rearrange and allocate prestige and time in different ways to maximally use the technology.
- neuroticnews25 16d ago>community can rearrange You're describing an improvised surgery on a living organism. Developing a complex system involving humans that is productive and doesn't collapse is extremely hard, so if it ain't broke don't fix it.
- simianwords 16d agoBut man this is ridiculous. 25 field medalists don’t accept agency in their own community but try to push external people to change their process?? Why can’t the letter say “guys new tech dropped. We need to reorganise. Understanding is crucial” instead of asking OpenAI to change their process.
- NonHyloMorph 16d agoMight have to do with the circumstances of Open AIs conduct that was quite sketchy to say the least? There is 25 people who see it as their responsibility to use their status in the field of maths to weigh in on public discourse regarding that field.
- jplusequalt 16d ago>It is up to us to coordinate and make use of the technology. 1) Coordination is hard, and 2) "us" is a hopelessly nebulous term that appears inclusive but is almost always exclusive. I think people would have said the creation of social media platforms like Facebook was neither good or bad, but rather it was "up to us to coordinate and make use of". But did our society really have a say over how Facebook and other social media sites were able to embed themselves in our everyday lives? I would argue the answer is no.