Right so this goes to the other alternative; there's still useful work for mathematicians after all in dissecting, distilling, and generalizing these results. But according to some we now inhabit an excluded middle where the AI produces useless results but also makes these problems useless for mathematicians to study further.
If you invent the ability to tragedise a particular commons, and you also do almost all of the work of turning the crank to make the commons tragic, and then you sit there benefiting from the tragedy of the commons while saying “we may be profiting from it, but the tragedy of the commons is not our problem”, eventually we will figure out what you’re up to.
Nothing these LLM companies are doing is comparable to a flying car. Perhaps we could ask whether a company making flying monkeys should care about the economic fortunes of bipedal monkeys.
Of course it is. It's a brand new technology with a great deal of potential and some caveats. Something like this has not existed in the history of humanity to date. It's truly mind boggling that a large chunk of humanity's corpus can be compressed to just a trillion bytes, then queried and recombined at whim. Heck, a flying car is less revolutionary.
What exactly would you want to regulate? And keep in mind that regulations are very effective at protecting incumbents, which, as of right now, also includes openAI.
What exactly would you be advocating for? That LLMs can't be used to generate mathematical proofs? It's not even a case of intellectual theft, academic papers are in the public domain or can be accessed through a subscription.
