robotpepi

4 ms·

1.
by robotpepi 5d ago
It feels like publicity stunt. Of they really care about research, they would at least have given more reasonable citations in the Navier-Stokes paper.
2.
by robotpepi 5d ago
> Were you, let's say 6 months ago, expecting it to resolve one of the Millennium Prize problems? I didn't expect them to throw millions of dollars at each famous math problem. But one year ago we already had LLMs that solved I
3.
by robotpepi 6d ago
> Otherwise you could just put this problem into an automated theorem prover (we've had those forever, they are actually just brute-forcing it). There are many automatic theorem provers that do very clever stuff, just as the underly
4.
by robotpepi 6d ago
For me, mathematicians seem to be still having an inner discussion rather a making these essays for the more general public. In any case, I think that statements of the type "there's actually no role for human Mathematicians"
5.
by robotpepi 6d ago
> In the (extremely) short run, yes. In the long run, those jobs will also be done by AI. Let's be honest: we don't know. Maybe you're right, but for the moment it's more likely that you're not. And countries can
6.
by robotpepi 7d ago
> 1) My way of thinking, and 2) what I already know and how well I recall it in this context. I don't think we're discussing pedagogy. Good _research_ exposition is instead related to communicate your intuition and way of seein
7.
by robotpepi 7d ago
I don't see the point. No one is proposing a complete rejection of AI tools.
8.
by robotpepi 9d ago
You don't know what the survivorship bias is.
9.
by robotpepi 11d ago
He later participated in Bourbaki, who were known by their overly formal style, tough.
10.
by robotpepi 12d ago
Code has a very different purpose than math tough. The development in basic science follows a different motivation system.
11.
by robotpepi 12d ago
I'd say this is the most optimistic scenario. there are really difficult problems to be solved in terms of access to AI.
12.
by robotpepi 12d ago
i wonder if anyone is going to read that.
13.
by robotpepi 13d ago
> This kind of argument is always dangerous, because it essentially resorts to moving goalposts. "Oh, AI can now do X? Sure it is amazing, but it can't do Y yet, so we're totally safe!" It's not about moving goal
14.
by robotpepi 13d ago
Well the author of this one obtained a grant based on the work, the proof uses the same strategy as Anthropic's and even share some notation. I'm not an expert but this doesn't seem like one of those P!=NP proofs.
15.
by robotpepi 13d ago
> Disproof of the Jacobian conjecture by example It should be noted that there was a manuscript, available online since the beginning of 2025, with a solution to the Jacobian conjecture: "Adrian Vasiu claims that the 7 page AI paper
16.
by robotpepi 13d ago
I don't think the essay was proposing that mathematicians should continue to focus on proving everything by themselves forever. It's mostly a critic of how the discussion is focusing too much on that mere "yes/no" a
17.
by robotpepi 13d ago
> This subjective attitude turns mathematics into nothing more than number-poetry. I don't think you understood the point. The point applies to all of basic science. You of course want some explanation supporting the raw answer, so
18.
by robotpepi 13d ago
For the moment, AI is not capable of advancing mathematics _in the sense_ you're describing. AI is very bad at designing stuff, asking questions, etc. Maybe in the future you'll be able to ask the AI "cure cancer" and it
19.
by robotpepi 13d ago
> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase What are these comments? Tao, in particular, has been pro AI since years ago...
20.
by robotpepi 14d ago
> Wondering how this will discourage mathematicians at all, since now they have another tool to accelerate their research. I'm a professional mathematician and these tools are not available for me. So not happy about that! (just to
21.
by robotpepi 14d ago
I don't understand what you're proposing then. We can ask AI to solve practical problems of interest (making a computer faster for instance), but I'd say no one really believes that this is an unlimited resource. At some poin
22.
by robotpepi 14d ago
> I thought the historical examples of photography and chess engines would be enough for people to connect the dots, but apparently not. You're just an overconfident idiot who thinks that because there is an analogy along one dimen
23.
by robotpepi 14d ago
agree. so many people missing the point. I don't think they even bothered to read the letter.
24.
by robotpepi 14d ago
> I am saying that for a fixed target, like proving the Rieman hypothesis from scratch, the required hardware will shrink. Yes, but to what point the hardware will shrink? There are several orders of magnitude of difference in what in yo
25.
by robotpepi 14d ago
so you're 100% sure that AI will solve every intellectual problem in the future, since as long as that's not the case, it's us who need to ask the questions. I don't know man, I wouldn't bet on that. What if we end
26.
by robotpepi 14d ago
to be honest it is difficult to discuss with someone who doesn't even try to understand the basics of basic science (and how it compares with _applied_ sicence), yet talks with so much confidence. even the solution to navier stokes won
27.
by robotpepi 14d ago
> But I also think that he is a bit shell shocked, much like other luminaries in the past have been when confronted with rapid technological development You're locked into that idea, but provide no real argument. The dangers they de
28.
by robotpepi 14d ago
The problem with your opinions is that you tend to state certain very quesitonable ideas with 100% confidence. Right now, we don't know if AI will be able to solve bigger problems, or if they'll be so efficients that you no longer
29.
by robotpepi 14d ago
We can't be sure AI will be able to ask the questions of the future. At least right now, AI is not capable of that.
30.
by robotpepi 14d ago
I still don't see the analogy, can you care to develop?

More ›