@tomstello_@allTheYud You're a professor at CMU, who does work in Human-Computer interaction. You have got to have the basic habit and research chops to check this sort of thing independently of the reasoning trace. It's basic to decent scholarly practice around these systems.
@deontologistics@littmath And for what it's worth, I think that Daniel does a generally good job in presenting a reasonable and defensible assessment of AI progress in math, and you could do much worse in tracking the meaning of its progress than by following the news through him
@deontologistics@littmath Thanks! It took me some time to get around to reading your piece, but I think I understand your point much better now, and I think I basically agree that the developments are sobering in that sense. Thanks for taking the time to elaborate.
@florianederer If a human failed in the same ways that these systems routinely fail, we would see that as evidence of them having no clue what they're talking about. These AI systems perform reasoning-like tasks sufficiently differently from humans that these comparisons are deeply misleading.
@mattxiv Really appreciated this interview (and having @EmmaVigeland was stellar)! Out of curiosity, was it a conscious choice not to raise the tension btwn MM's view that it's not her role to determine how ๐ฎ๐ฑ&๐ต๐ธ coexist, but still advocates a 2 state soln over 1, or for defensive wpnry?
@deontologistics Could you say a bit more about what aspect of the progress in mathematics you've found especially sobering, and in what respects? As a mathematician, I've found their progress interesting, but wouldn't escalate to "sobering" tbh. But maybe I'm miscalibrating
@LucaAmb@Kaju_Nut@WKCosmo Like, truly, this is standard so basic to the scholarly enterprise that it baffles me that there is any controversy about this. You simply should not cite things you haven't read. This seems so basic to me.
@LucaAmb@Kaju_Nut@WKCosmo Ok, so this seems like a problem with using AI in this manner then. Accurate citations is a basic scholarly standard, and to the extent that AI is bad at this, scholars should be expected to take actions to correct for it (eg. by not being sloppy in their editing)
@axelroark@thomasfbloom Well, it's different in at least two cases: you could not use AI and make as many mistakes as you like, or you could use AI, and make sure that you do not make mistakes of the kind that would lead someone to believe that you never checked the AI output
Hot take: many claiming AI has "solved" research problems are dangerously applying human sociological proof contracts to AI, when in reality we need a *totally* different social contract for what constitutes an acceptable proof from an LLM:
@geogristle All good brother. Twitter's a tricky medium in the best of times and doubly so before coffee. I think I understand your concern better now, and I do think it's good if stories like this inspire folks to try their hand at thinking old problems anew in their own ways
@geogristle Ah, I see. But on that reading, it's hard for me to see how Tao's statement could be meant to rob people of their human spirit. If we take him to be saying that the regular approach of mathematicians does not involve such an epic quest, then this... 1/2