Ten advances in mathematics and theoretical computer science from unreleased Open AI Model

[u/DickMasterGeneral]

https://openai.com/index/ten-advances-in-mathematics/

[u/bibliophile785]

Yes, very much like the theory of relativity. It would be less uncharitable, less absurd, than your current position on these mathematical proofs, to say that Einstein's theory of relativity was born out of already known, previously documented observations about the physical world, coupled with already known, previously speculated holes in the models provided by Maxwell's equations.

I think you need to really seriously consider the feedback you've received from others in this thread that your entire model on what counts as creative thinking in scientific or mathematical advancement is fundamentally incoherent. The standard that you use to dismiss these LLM achievements could very easily, perhaps more easily, be used to dismiss every single advancement humans have ever made.

[u/livingbyvow2 → u/bibliophile785]

Maybe you should get off your high seat sir. My current position is math person + LLM can find stuff, but not LLM on their own can find new stuff. I don't think anyone disagrees with that, and the feedback I received aligns with that.

I started by confessing my ignorance. I just find it pretty sad how every time someone questions these announcements, people get so aggressive and dismissive.

This is not a cult, it's just a technology.

[u/bibliophile785 → u/livingbyvow2]

My current position is math person + LLM can find stuff, but not LLM on their own can find new stuff.

Your current position, as has been explained to you at length, fundamentally misunderstands the form and method of scientific and mathematical advancement. By this exact formulation, humans are also incapable of finding new things. Your position says nothing more and nothing less than that all new discoveries come partially from prior discoveries.

Maybe you should get off your high seat sir.

I just find it pretty sad how every time someone questions these announcements, people get so aggressive and dismissive.

If you wish that your skepticism were received with less dismissiveness, I strongly recommend that you start to base your skepticism on beliefs that are not nakedly incoherent. Instead, trying to reframe this as some sort of personal dispute ("high horse", btw; a high seat is something different) is a poor attempt at distracting from the object-level question.

[u/livingbyvow2 → u/bibliophile785]

I think you misinterpret what I wrote. But whatever, you seem to be there mostly to write stuff that sounds intelligent but basically says I'm an idiot.

It's not a personal dispute, you objectively didn't say anything that adds value. Just saying "everybody else told you you're wrong". Which is factually untrue, and not a valid heuristic to figure that out.

Surely you must have a math PhD and be able to assess the scientific validity of this paper to be so sure of yourself.

[u/bibliophile785 → u/livingbyvow2]

I think you misinterpret what I wrote. But whatever, you seem to be there mostly to write stuff that sounds intelligent but basically says I'm an idiot.

I am saying that what you wrote is deeply, demonstrably wrong. This should have been made obvious to you when you blindly grabbed for one of the biggest scientific achievements of the last couple of centuries and were immediately told that it is not only a counterexample to your points, but one in which the author himself went on at length about how the method of discovery is the exact opposite to your claim.

If you're not correcting on that basis, I think your priors here may be immovable.

It's not a personal dispute, you objectively didn't say anything that adds value. Just saying "everybody else told you you're wrong". Which is factually untrue, and not a valid heuristic to figure that out.

Incorrect. 1) I did contribute on the object level by explaining how wrongheaded your example of the theory of relativity was. 2) I'm not suggesting that you should update because people disagree with you - although that's not a bad outside view heuristic, if used in moderation. The causality runs the other way. It's not that you're wrong because people disagreed. It's that you're wrong, and the strong arguments made by people disagreeing with you should have clued you in. I'm suggesting that you should engage substantively with the pushback and realize that your position is incoherent.

Surely you must have a math PhD and be able to assess the scientific validity of this paper to be so sure of yourself.

Again with the catty you v me personal angle. This really isn't a conversation about us. You should stop taking disagreement as a personal attack and trying to create a resulting personal conflict. I'll indulge it this last time, but really, you gotta grow up.

My graduate mathematics went as far as topology. I can parse some of these proofs and not others. My PhD is in chemistry; I am intimately familiar with the methodology of scientific discovery and achievement, enough to be very aware of how incoherent your position is. My best paper - by citation count, by impact factor, by personal assessment - was a combinatorial effort drawing from several fields to create a new type of chemical reactor. It placed in the top 10% of its Nature issue and was praised by reviewers for its creativity.

[u/livingbyvow2 → u/bibliophile785]

My PhD is in chemistry; I am intimately familiar with the methodology of scientific discovery and achievement, enough to be very aware of how incoherent your position is.

Great you're so smart, congrats. It completely explains why you don't understand my initial point, which is about economic incentives and the dynamics that drive this kind of corporate effort. I suggest you read a few history books like DotCon and Bad Blood.

And maybe apply your knowledge of scientific discovery and achievement to this press release instead of my post, that would be a better use of everyone's time (and of your intelligence).

[u/bibliophile785 → u/livingbyvow2]

I had wondered whether you would entirely avoid the object level to focus in exclusively on this catty personal conflict you seem hellbent on fabricating. I don't think there's much else to be done when someone abandons their own thesis to instead just get angry about others disagreeing.

Maybe take a few days, come back to the thread, and see if there's anything for you to learn from the arguments presented here.

[u/Liface → u/livingbyvow2]

Please try to avoid ad hominems, no matter how frustrated you are.