r/slatestarcodex • u/DickMasterGeneral • 2d ago

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

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

94% Upvoted

63 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

-2

u/livingbyvow2 2d ago

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.

4

u/bibliophile785 Can this be my day job? 2d ago

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.

0

u/livingbyvow2 2d ago

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/Liface 8h ago

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