But for all the slop and uncertainty, the overarching consensus is that the release contains some genuinely impressive work.
While stressing the difficulties assessing the volume of material — and the need to properly verify the results — numerous researchers The Verge spoke to said the work appeared to be of a very high caliber, despite shortcomings in its presentation. In a pre-AI world, they said, many of OpenAI’s results would clearly have warranted publication in top-tier journals and could have been enough to secure an academic career for their authors. A handful were described as being the kind of work that could make a mathematician a serious contender for a Fields Medal, one of the discipline’s highest honors.
While some of it is slop, there appear to be genuine gems in there.
I feel like most of the commentors here didn’t even bother reading the article. It’s insane how so many of the mathematicians cited in the article are excited or anxious about developments, and most of the people in here are just declaring more AI slop.
Agreed, but tbh even after reading the article I’m left scratching my head about the exact type of journalism on display here. The Verge is just going around eliciting hot takes from mathematicians who are completely overwhelmed with this drop - only 40% formalized in Lean and three retractions in only a few days.
The math community doesn’t know what to make of it, the verge doesn’t either but they feel the need to report something… so they’re pressuring for comments when the only reasonable thing to do is to keep your head down and read more until you parse wtf it is this unknown model with an unknown prompt produced for an unknown field of mathematics with almost no apparent explanation or fleshed out ideas on how this could apply to current knowledge or problems.
So calling it slop, at least for the time being seems at least somewhat reasonable. Though some claimed that there were 10s of interesting papers among the 700.
The point is, there are plenty of mathematicians who have looked at some of the output and been impressed by it. Contrast that with the comments in here that are almost universally negative. One might think there was an unreasonable bias in our little echo chamber.
Its a real the boy who cried AGI problem. They are doing constant bullshit hype to keep investors so when they announce anything the assumption is bullshit hype. It doesn’t help that their product is really really good at writing bullshit hype.
While some of it is slop, there appear to be genuine gems in there.
I feel like most of the commentors here didn’t even bother reading the article. It’s insane how so many of the mathematicians cited in the article are excited or anxious about developments, and most of the people in here are just declaring more AI slop.
The issue is that some of those “gems” are just stolen research from real mathematicians.
And others are actual gems. They’re not mutually exclusive. It’s ok to point out the problems while also acknowledging there’s actual accomplishments.
I’m a Lemmy user, I don’t want to be objective, I only want to hate
Agreed, but tbh even after reading the article I’m left scratching my head about the exact type of journalism on display here. The Verge is just going around eliciting hot takes from mathematicians who are completely overwhelmed with this drop - only 40% formalized in Lean and three retractions in only a few days.
The math community doesn’t know what to make of it, the verge doesn’t either but they feel the need to report something… so they’re pressuring for comments when the only reasonable thing to do is to keep your head down and read more until you parse wtf it is this unknown model with an unknown prompt produced for an unknown field of mathematics with almost no apparent explanation or fleshed out ideas on how this could apply to current knowledge or problems.
So calling it slop, at least for the time being seems at least somewhat reasonable. Though some claimed that there were 10s of interesting papers among the 700.
The point is, there are plenty of mathematicians who have looked at some of the output and been impressed by it. Contrast that with the comments in here that are almost universally negative. One might think there was an unreasonable bias in our little echo chamber.
Its a real the boy who cried AGI problem. They are doing constant bullshit hype to keep investors so when they announce anything the assumption is bullshit hype. It doesn’t help that their product is really really good at writing bullshit hype.
Yeah but I wish the crowd on lemmy would be a little less reddity and actually read the articles.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/openai-unleashes-hundreds-more-math-results-upon-a-field-already-in-shock/
This article seems was a little easier to get through for me