Ideas are contagious and AI is our most powerful vector yet.
I suppose we would see some interaction with AI in that sense, but it'll take place over the course of learn cycles and when AI starts ingesting its own ideas it typically goes wrong somewhere down the line.
The problem with that is that it implicitly assumes things will progress in the way we're used to.
AI written software doing the exact thing it was supposed to but breaking apart on any further improvements or changes matches what I've seen from AI generated output. The code is often bloated and fragile.
Maybe in 2 years the only jobs devs can get anymore is working for Frontier Labs to build training data / RL environments to improve performance on this task. Who knows? In the limit it seems like a solvable problem...
I'm a bit confused what they're actually doing. Their code is now covered by two different licenses with each file licensed under one of the two and they claim the resulting application is using the commercial Bitwarden license and not the GPL license?
How on earth does that work? Is that something the GPL license even allows?
This sounds like they're just taking a GPL licensed application and using it for themselves to make money.
It's how a lot of open-core products work. Basically, when you hold the copyright, you can apply whatever license you wish when distributing the software at any time. People can use existing copies of the code under their old licenses, but they must follow the new terms if they acquire the code through the new channels.
To get any PR merged in Bitwarden, you are forced to sign a CLA that reassigns copyright to Bitwarden Inc so they can relicense as they wish.
> How on earth does that work? Is that something the GPL license even allows?
GPL doesn't apply in this case, since the copy that you are acquiring is entirely under the commercial license.
I think quite a few mathematicians would be interested in using AI to figure out the answer.
But providing the answer in gibberish along with a certificate is not that, it's at best a cruel way to do it, but I'm leaning towards the idea that it's a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to do math and what it means to communicate a result.
If you think sending an answer in gibberish is acceptable just because it's true then SSdtIG5vdCBzdXJlIHdoYXQgdG8gdGVsbCB5b3UsIGJ1dCB3ZSBkaXNhZ3JlZSBvbiB0aGF0.
I think it's quite clear the mathematics panel didn't read most of the papers with the scrutiny it would take to publish it, if only because the lean certificates and the informal proofs are not 100% the same.
And if it's hard to understand (which seems to be the most common reaction) it's not exactly devoid of noise either
There was an opportunity for people to work with the AI to produce a proof, now it almost feels they're working against it.
I mean it used to be utterly impossible, but now? Hard to tell.
reply