I'm sure it can be taught not to lean so heavily on the stylistic flourishes that bother us so much today, but writing is always going to seem vapid if you're taking 1x the amount of intention (the prompt) and inflating it to 5x or 10x the number of words.
The more pertinent question is not the binary "should we fund mathematicians or not?" It's "how many?" The money you dole out to them needs to come from someone else.
Easy yes: Let's impose a tax on everyone to support at least one mathematician.
Easy no: Let's impose a tax on everyone to support one billion mathematicians.
Where are you going to draw that line? How are you going to convince a majority of voters that you're drawing it at the right place?
We already have public support for the arts, and basic research, so going back to the fundamentals isn't necessary.
We draw the line, where the voting public, and elected representatives decide. Our political system is squishy and doesn't require upfront reasoning, or absolutely correct decisions.
We often make wrong, sometimes even horrifically wrong decisions, and adjust later.
100%. You're at the place that I was trying to lead the parent comment. There's a wide range of reasonable positions on how much to invest in any given thing like science, the arts, etc.
The public is generally bad at debates around taxing and spending, sadly. Voters struggle to accept the idea that more of X means less of Y. They want to believe they can have it all, for free, and there are plenty of politicians willing to tell them they can.
If you trust the system and you think things are going to work out, then you have nothing to worry about. But people are saying this is a crisis, and to solve a crisis you have to have at least a vague plan.
Do we support people who are intentionally not using GPS and are still using paper maps? Or even the people who do it without any maps, just from their memory?
Do we support people who aren't using vaccines and are intentionally infecting themselves directly (measles parties)?
Do we support people who are intentionally using axe instead of chainsaw? Police officers and stormtroopers who are intentionally using knife instead of a gun?
With civilization and technology we do loose some mental capabilities - like say the part of the brain Amazonian people use for extremely skillful face recognition we do use for reading/writing while loosing that face recognition skill level that those people in the jungle have. So goes the medieval way of doing mathematics (it is a pity though - I liked it and hoped that mathematics will fall among the last, yet it happened to be among the firsts)
> Do we support people who are intentionally not using GPS and are still using paper maps? Or even the people who do it without any maps, just from their memory?
Yes. We do - it's a sport from way back and ongoing - a good many people want to retain non GPS navigational skills.
> Do we support people who are intentionally using axe instead of chainsaw? Police officers and stormtroopers who are intentionally using knife instead of a gun?
Yes. We do. Proficiency in multiple weapons and non weapon combat is a basic part of service training. Axes and wedges still have their place in tree felling.
You are making your argument on the basis that LLMs and future AI system will be just as good or better as current mathematicians at all the relevant processes involved in academic math and mathematics in general. I'd like to see an experiment where an AI system was trained as a 1870s mathematician and see if it can come up with set theory, if that is not possible, then current AI systems are not fit to replace mathematicians.
The hell is that reply? If we're obsoleting human mathematicians, which have fundamentally been the same thing brains-wise since forever, why shouldn't an AI system be able to replace a 1870s mathematician in the same way you are proposing it replace a 2020s mathematician?
>which have fundamentally been the same thing brains-wise since forever
and you don't see any issue here? When it takes people 2 years to understand a proof it means that the old ways are done, they hit cul-de-sac.
Like in many situations, it is the highest point as well as it is a crisis at the same time.
>why shouldn't an AI system be able to replace a 1870s mathematician
my point isn't that whether it would be able to replace - i think it would. My point is that it doesn't matter. The tool is needed for the 2020s math with those proofs taking 2 years, not for the 1870s math with proofs fitting a several pages letter.
Edit in response to the comment below as i hit my post limit :
New mathematical fields require many years of work by many people. What seems to be coming is people would be able to explore various ideas in say days instead of those years. It means more fields will be discovered and built up. And by wider array of people, ie. by the less capable than the top dog people. Mathematics will be more like engineering. Including more practical applications - like exploring transformers trajectories mapped into manifolds in p-adic spaces and applying the dynamic systems chaos theory there - borderline gibberish that no human would spend meaningful time on, yet a one would be able to throw a couple bucks at Claude++ for it to play with it. That would mean more money into the math, not less.
I am not debating IA's capabilities at coming up with proofs, I'm debating whether such systems will be able to figure out new mathematical fields or not. If they can't figure out some field from what was known at the time, what guarantees are there that AI-mathematics won't just bog down at its current state? There must be some evidence that AI can come up with novel mathematics before we decide to throw academics out the window. The risk of creating a sort of mathematical dark age just based on the current situation is far too great to stop funding mathematics research.
That exactly illustrates the way of technology - the first commercial GPS receivers cost $3000, and of course people used the paper maps back then, yet technology prices have always been going down (temporary RAM crunches notwithstanding :)
The difference is that the inventors of GPS didn’t deliberately buy out the entire world’s supply of GPS receivers so that no more could be sold to ordinary people.
Assuming paper maps were the only alternative - absolutely yes. I probably would, and least on a pro rata basis for bigger weekend trips in unfamiliar areas.
You're thinking about this all wrong. Just step into this cranial MRI scanning booth to livestream the structure and composition of your skull straight to the cloud, then we'll fire up 10000 agents to find the perfect cap for you.
The grandparent comment said "liable". That's civil court, not criminal, and doesn't need the DOJ to be involved. HuggingFace and/or RubyGems could sue OpenAI.
States also have their own laws against unauthorized computer use (hacking). A state Attorney General could bring a suit under those laws, regardless of who is in the white house.
They absolutely could. There's a decent claim for OAI being reckless or at least negligent.
The limiting thing, in my mind, is the need to show harm. How much did OAI's recklessness hurt HuggingFace? There's some dev hours devoted to the cleanup but it's not like it devastated their business. Their legal team is probably a lot more focused on the Nvidia acquisition instead.
I feel like it's the government that has to sue OpenAI for reckless endangerment of human life, or something similar. I don't believe the current models could "take over the world" even if humans tried to help them, but both OpenAI and Anthropic themselves talk publicly about how dangerous they believe these models to be. Then if that's so, they should be held responsible as if the models were that dangerous, but who's supposed to put that in motion? The only entity I can think of is the government.
Would there also not be some reputational damages that could be compensated for as well? These are the types of cases usually ending in a settlement for non-disclosed amounts with NDAs attached.
These (and other TOS agreements) fall under the category of "adhesion contracts".
Because the buyer has no real ability to negotiate, any ambiguity is resolved in their favor. A judge can also strike provisions that a reasonable buyer would not expect, or that are unconscionable. So it's up to the judge's judgment.
The cooler thing is that if a substantial amount of the 216M TV owners tried to arbitrate across the country/world, they'd cave so fast. Arbitration is cheaper than an individual law suit, but much much more expensive than a class-action.
There are incentives other than marketing, but I doubt the SEO company referred to by the ancestor comment is planning to do lots of business in the political propaganda space.
reply