Roberto I. O.

Math: Prob, Stats & Learning. Roman Catholic Church; Botafogo; random politics, history, econ & phil; art esp. music esp. samba & jazz; fam life with 3 kids.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@StuffForSisters @Ljiljana1972 From what I remember, the superior seems to be a bit uncomfortable with the situation. He know there was no reason for scandal but does seem to feel the need to explain it.

[Oliver Stuenkel 🇧🇷 @OliverStuenkel]

via @LatamData

[Daniel Litt @littmath]

My guess is that eventually AI has advantage over us in all aspects of mathematical research. But I think there are two possible worlds where this doesn't happen soonish:

(1) AI exceeds our capabilities in all measurable capabilities, but there are still some (very intangible) intangibles where humans have higher capabilities. In this world we see AI making huge numbers of amazing discoveries but for some weird reason humans sometimes also do so. This could happen if there are some skills that are useful for math research but very hard to measure or train for. I think this is unlikely but possible.

(2) Rather than AI exceeding humans in all capabilities, AI becomes more like *one* (or several) amazing mathematician(s). By which I mean, very technically strong but with a certain point of view, which makes them more likely to make certain discoveries than others. In this world humans are useful because of their greater cognitive diversity--they sometimes think of approaches/questions/ideas that don't occur to the AI. This happens now--there are mathematicians much stronger than I am but I'm still useful (plausibly for reasons other than comparative advantage) because I have some different points of view. I think this is closer to what the near-term trend looks like, but the medium-term is less clear.

In the (IMO more likely, in the medium-to-long term) world where AI does have absolute advantage over us in all aspects, I don't think research ends. Plausibly we have AI producing huge numbers of papers, asking all sorts of interesting questions, and so on. Probably these questions do not include all questions we might ask, so there's still some role where we ask questions (even if the models are better at this, me still might care about questions they haven't asked)!

And IMO the goal of science isn't just "papers," it also includes things like "understanding." Maybe the models have this in their weights or something, but I also want to understand stuff. So we have to extract this understanding from papers or model weights or w/ever. This might look more like hermeneutics than research currently does, but my experience is that trying to understand mathematics that someone else has produced is not actually so different from research. You end up doing a lot of work, developing your own intuition, and so on.

[Thomas Bloom @thomasfbloom]

Maths research is an incremental business.

Just because I stand on the shoulders of giants does not make me taller than them.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@SohrabAhmari @EricRSammons Man, it is almost as if Claude has a vested interest in the (non-)regulation of AI!

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@botafogo_indie O batedor de faltas? Amava.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@futnostalgico Tive um professor que jogou nos aspirantes do Fluminense de Alagoas. Teve brevemente como reserva um jogador que depois foi pro Santos e perdeu a vaga no time titular pro Pelé. Com base nisso o professor dizia que o Pelé tinha sido reserva do reserva dele.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@AttilaTheLund @Noahpinion I really don't think that's the case. You mean that computers could have been writing mathematical papers for some time now without a drop in the quality of output?

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@tunguz Fast factoring.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@AttilaTheLund @Noahpinion Sorry, what do you mean by your last sentence?

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

Algebra and number theory (very broadly understood) has a lot of potential for cool combinatorial constructions (think error-correcting codes and Ramanujan graphs). AI has found one more such case! This is cool & not extremely surprising at the same time!

[Daniel Litt @littmath]

This one is (IMO) pretty interesting! https://t.co/v3f5Uh8ole

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@professorguilh2 @footballcritix Entendi o que você disse, só acho que a marra foi algo que ele trouxe da Europa. Diga-se de passagem, o time foi mais longe do que eu teria previsto.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@lpachter @WKCosmo Isn't it standard to cite the erratum along with the original paper? I do that all the time. (I've noted the duplicated authors also, but this does not seem to be a particularly compelling "gotcha".)

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@Fogostats Foi um excelente jogador com passagem rápida pelo nosso clube. Não nos esqueceremos nem da parte boa, nem do trote descompromissado em campo nos seus últimos jogos.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@professorguilh2 @footballcritix Pô, irmão, a marra não foi pelo estadual.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@ednyoka Father, please prayfor my mother's health, and that I may be healthy enough to take care of her. My mother's name is Marcia.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@pe_vogt @mgaldino Ah, você tá supondo que "nada" que aconteceu antes afeta a chance de cada cobrador acertar. Com essa hipótese, eu concordo com o WLOG. Erro meu.

[Roberto I. O. @rimfo]

@pe_vogt @mgaldino Se me permite, acho que a hipótese de que serão sempre 5 pênaltis é bem "with loss of generality"! Chutaria (!) que a chance de não se chegar a 5 batidas de cada lado é longe o suficiente de 0 pra fazer bastante diferença.