Maricarmen del Pilar ⚜︎♱

Me expreso a poesía & música 📖Nefelibata por van Gogh, Monet,Tesla,Spinoza & Borges🪷Concebida por Audrey Hepburn,criada por Monica Bellucci & educadaporLadyDi

[Maricarmen del Pilar ⚜︎♱ @mapiaamez]

Vicent Van Gogh en 14 segundos 💙🌻

[Maricarmen del Pilar ⚜︎♱ @mapiaamez]

Mmmm

[Jacob Coxon @hilbertspaess]

The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade. This is not a marketing stunt. If anything, many executives and senior researchers will couch their phrasing in the press to sound sensible - but I hear the same people express fear privately. No other human activity poses this level of danger.

[doomslide @doomslide]

This will radicalize so many mathematicians lmfao

[Josh @yFactr]

watch out odysseus, despite smooth boundary conditions it is generating a singularity

[Smoke-away @SmokeAwayyy]

Rules to live by:

1. Any data you send to a closed AI model is no longer your data.

2. Any data you send through an AI Router is no longer your data.

3. Any data you send to a free service is no longer your data.

[Evan Hubinger @EvanHub]

Jacob is correct here—we really do earnestly believe AI could kill all humans! I personally think it is >10% within the next decade. I believe Anthropic is trying its best, but we do not yet have a plan to solve alignment for superintelligence and are not clearly on track to.

[Pablo R. (Root Rat) @root_rat]

Habría estado curioso el Proyecto Manhattan hecho en público y con Twitter.

[Emu Brigadier @emubrigadier]

No, Sam.

Removing a co-author over their affiliation, or for any other reason unrelated to their intellectual contribution, is academic fraud.

Pressuring someone to do so is academic misconduct.

You have just admitted to it. I hope that's clear.

[Lorel @lorel_sg]

It's insane how Open AI really pressured a renowned mathematician to commit academic fraud. They have no ethical consideration. Fortunately, said mathematician refused. Still more ethics in academia than in these big corporations.

[Pedro Domingos @pmddomingos]

The problem with working on any breakthrough using AI is that there's no guarantee the company running the AI won't steal it from you.

[Steve McCormick @Quasilocal]

Couldn't help myself

[Cocoahomology @cocoahomology]

threatening mathematicians with career consequences don't work too well since they are the type of ppl who chose to become mathematicians

[Valerio Capraro @ValerioCapraro]

Terence Tao made a very powerful point:

“In most cases in pure mathematics, the problems are posed not because we desperately want the solution to these problems in and of themselves, but because we have seen from past experience that human-directed efforts to solve these problems tend to spur further development of the field through the efforts to solve such problems, and then to digest any partial or complete solutions that emerge for further insights.

Prematurely solving the problem by purely AI-powered methods—particularly without full transparency into the solution process—can contaminate this process to the point where it actually becomes a net negative for the progress of mathematics as a whole.”

I’ve been following Terence Tao for like 20 years, and I have always been impressed by the clarity of his thinking.

This clarity stands out even more in this difficult moment, as AI labs turn mathematics into a battleground in their race for supremacy.

In this race, they risk damaging one of humanity’s highest intellectual endeavours.

[Chetuya Chinagolum @Chetuyachinago]

This is the textbook definition of a Greek gift. On the surface, OpenAI generously grants 10,000 top-tier mathematicians and elite engineers free access to their frontier models under the noble, philanthropic banner of accelerating scientific discovery, pushing the boundaries of human knowledge, and democratizing artificial intelligence.

But deep down in the cold reality of Silicon Valley capitalism, what they are actually doing is executing a massive, highly sophisticated intellectual heist. They are quietly gaining unrestricted, backdoor access to the raw, unfiltered, and unpublished works of the absolute finest minds in the global scientific community. Every single complex prompt, every mathematical query, every theoretical framework, and every line of experimental code fed into that system is a novel, groundbreaking idea that does not even exist yet in published academic literature or peer-reviewed journals.

OpenAI does not just provide a helpful service. Their corporate algorithms sit quietly behind the scenes, aggressively monitoring all chat logs, scraping the intellectual property, analyzing the logical steps, and meticulously piecing together these fragmented, brilliant ideas over several months. And just when the human researcher is finally on the absolute brink of putting everything together, OpenAI will ruthlessly assemble a digital army of 10,000 autonomous AI agents, burn $20 million worth of computational tokens, and brute-force the final mathematical steps.

Then, with the backing of their massive PR machine, corporate journalists, and tech influencers, they will proudly hold a press conference to claim that their proprietary chatbot has miraculously solved a Millennium Prize problem, completely, shamelessly erasing the human genius they systematically strip-mined to achieve it.

[Maricarmen del Pilar ⚜︎♱ @mapiaamez]

@WLOGSarim @basedalexandoor 🥹😂

[neil turkewitz @neilturkewitz]

“AI can solve any problem, so long as a human published the solution first.”

[Pata van Goon @basedalexandoor]

OpenAI: We're gonna destroy your career

Tristan: "I'm an academic"

[freemasonslayer 🍓 @freemasnslayr]

If an internal AI model solves P = NP, I will personally strip myself of all earthly belongings and wonder the streets naked like a modern-day Diogenes.

[Maricarmen del Pilar ⚜︎♱ @mapiaamez]

@SebastienBubeck @__alpoge__ No

[levent @__alpoge__]

“we cannot rule out that de-identified data derived from their usage of our products helped improve our models.”

i mean props to them for straight coming clean.

(so far the proof looks more along the lines of another euler blowup proof we had, off of whose ansatz naming we were making really stupid puns like “smooth criminale”, unlike the much better “ideal fluids explode”, Tristan)

so i’ll now give a bit on my thinking here. i actually woulda been pumped to collaborate on this, there are a lot of people at oai i like (ok, clearly some were indirectly dicks to me because of being part of the whole situation, but im a big boy, i still like them), idgaf about authorship on that step anyway, coulda been me Tristan and every fte at oai for all i care (on that Tristan would disagree:p). but on hearing the loud convo in the hallway, especially the part where a millennium prize was offered if i’d just be removed from the paper, it was kinda clear the die had been cast and things were locked. pretty wacky, unstrategic, and unnecessary, since on my side things were mostly me and claude having a good time yoloing random stuff in the corner rather than anything institutional. i also like the idea of the labs cooperating, and even better on scientific progress. it’s a shame!

[Shubham @sksq96]

here they are. buckmaster and alpöge, posted 4am today:

euler (112 pages): https://t.co/I8QcEAF57g
boussinesq (76): https://t.co/88PRW3xLoS
porous media (57): https://t.co/y1FT0Z2qtq
the lean proofs: https://t.co/w8z4KtdiRg
his statement: https://t.co/TDdaPb9Jcf

these are the papers the whole day is about, and they are open to read right now.

https://t.co/YSAyuOheho