joe_the_user
Now, what has been useful for advancing physics and biology has been the abstract conceptual frameworks - using Hilbert Space for model quantum mechanics or tropical geometry for DNA modeling.
So far AIs have shown an ability to prove mathematical theories but not an ability formulate coherent-to-human mathematical models. So allowing AIs to simply replace mathematicians isn't so far a way to achieve broad advances in other fields. Indeed, AIs so far are great mathematicians only if one views mathematics as solving "meaningless puzzles ... in isolation"
Pre-AI, I think it's correct to say that math exposition was given short shrift (but to be fair, at least in the US, math education fell under the umbrella of education schools and teacher training rather than university math departments and so professors of mathematics often could do little to change the sorry state of math education even if they wanted to).
But, on the other hand, the construction of grand structures, frameworks unifying various math fields, was already a competitor of the problem-solving paradigm (and Erdős' approach was actually an extreme wing of the problem-solving wing and his activity shouldn't be considered an example of what even a significant minority of math professors did).
See "The Erdős Paradox"
I will stick to my claim that math exists in the context of the hyper-competitive overall academic culture.
I should add that extreme competition combined with math being something people love, something with beauty unto itself, produces an especially weird world compared compared to a situation in, IDK, business school, where everything is about the money.
I mean, asking "who deserves to live the dream" really twists people's heads.
I am not an "AI booster", it seems like the current market leaders have dug a hole that they'll have a hard time getting out of. Just about everyone says something like "there's a bubble, it will burst, people will be hurt but the process will go on, like the Internet or railroads". But that ignore that the scale of this is beyond earlier bubbles (each bubble is larger than the last in our 30-40 year bubble-and-pop driven economy but that might not be comforting).
All that said, "some aren't benefiting" or "the average isn't benefiting" is a disingenuous argument if you want to say things are bad. AI companies have more of a real product people are paying than Google did. A large minority of companies (not all in the tech industry) are getting a boost. It's easy to say "the average is zero" when you exclude some. AI has boosted media companies that do a lot of transcription. Video generation serves half of advertising videos.
Reg: "All right, but apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, a fresh water system, and public health... what have the Romans ever done for us?" Attendee: "Brought peace?" Reg:"Oh, peace? Shut up!"
If the sum-total of the activities you engage isn't "you", what is? The things you buy? "Your" sports team?
Plus a hypercompetitive academic world is a pretty good explanation for people identifying only with their vocation - how else to do you get to the top except putting your whole self into the challenge?
The example definitely shines. Doing something barely non-trivial is great since it gives a feeling for the language. I wish other language introduction pages would take note.
The disaster for a problem-solution-oriented mathematician isn't that once problem-solution is easy they'll just switch to theory-explanation and machinery-building. It is that they will have to compete (and won't able to compete) with students and post-docs who've been doing theory-explanation and machinery-building for their entire career - and there are lots of these 'cause academic pipeline produces more people who can fill a job than jobs in every imaginable category and subcategory.
When AI writes proof no human can understand, it doesn't advance mathematics this way. Maybe AIs can understand their own proofs - meaning not just verify them but extract a machinery/broader-perspective (but I wouldn't count on it). But even machinery an AI isn't necessarily useful for humanity/society.
But naturally the situation is they want to be the ones paid the big bucks for such services.
Meh, no amount genius would have helped someone fix Afghanistan given that it was controlled by drug dealers abetted by the US state. I had a friend who was an urban planner, went Kabul on a grant and advised the state to put in sidewalks. Sure it would have improved things but naturally it didn't happen 'cause the state had corruption to do instead.
Question-closing was a big complaint through-out SO's history. My guess is that the top people were unconcerned because someone who complained about it was by the way the system defined people, a bad user (since they were lumped-in with those who really did ask already answered questions).
Actually, talking to ChatGpt, I found this article: “Stack Overflow Isn’t Very Welcoming. It’s Time for That to Change.” ( https://stackoverflow.blog/2018/04/26/stack-overflow-isnt-ve...) and that actually shows what the SO admins didn't get (imo obviously).
They thought the problem was people not being nice. But that actual problem was that SO was "gamified" and it's gamified interface made it impossible to win unless someone was ultra-competitive (and I'd those types burned-out over time as well). People not being nice was real but it was side-effect of the situation (questions answered instantly so a would-be question answered had to be constantly racing).
It's easy to imagine how the admins didn't see the situation. Each up of intensity seemed to up the engagement and so seemed a good thing. The question of whether the process was sustainable didn't appear and when there were problems it was attributed to something else.
I think
That's rhetorical, right? Of course mathematicians built on what older mathematicians built and OpenAI's machine built on that. The real question whether OpenAI's machine has contributed something others will in turn build on.
The closer you get to the real or plausible "omnipotent genie", why would the person in possession of such a thing respect the rights of the formal owner - and why the engineers and operations managers respect the right of the management - this along with the question why the maybe-conscious super-intelligent machine itself would respect the rest of the hierarchy?
For now, these structures actually need massive resource inputs and that doesn't look to change soon but naturally one should be on look-out for the possibility of the tide shifting.
The benefits of public transit derive to all of society not necessarily those immediately riding it. That's true of a multitude of state spending, education, social services and so-forth.
The US doesn't directly charge for many of the costs of roads, certainly it doesn't charge for the drawback in the form of pollution and urban sprawl. But when you get to buses, suddenly "you're not a charitable problem..."
You need a state or other body committed to fixed routs and seeing their long term benefit. The American ideology that public transit must directly support itself with revenue is what has resulted the miserable transit system that we see today.
Edit: I should add that the ideology of transit supporting itself also corrodes the key idea of fixed, scheduled routs, high-lighted in the article. I know in the US that even if a town I'm happens to currently have a decent public transit system (an occasional though uncommon occurrence) I know it will be crap in a couple years as revenues fluctuate since local transit is a political football, so I'd never count on public by selling my car or other decisions.
Which is to say the Internet can be "dead" without being filled with undetectable or detectable fake posts, not that fake posts help things.
AI's spottiness is exactly what describes this era. AI can create amazing code/image/video/article exception XYZ really annoying qualities that somewhat hobbles its ability to be autonomously.
And sure, maybe those problems will go away once we're at month X of the madness but we're still at month Y so are going to going remain for some moment.
The bulk of the safety should come from AI doing better job of reviewing tricky bugs since humans refuse to spend effort on writing more formal specifications.
But that part is the key point. We've had many years of networks building inherently insecure structures with security tacked as feature and the primary security process being more ad-hoc stopgaps.
I mean, the various supply-chain exploits we've seen said "we allow a dubious third party to blindly update our server 'cause it saves us admin money" and that speaks to how much other shoddiness a significant portion of companies allow on their servers.
It would be better if grant distribution relied on something saner than the effort to write a grant application, if education didn't rely the effort to write poor quality essays and servers didn't rely on the effort required to find the bugs you know are there. But those ships have sailed and I guess we're all just at sea.
These thing may reach your standard consistent at some point, maybe. It's not important since before and after this point, they will require "messing around" to produce something useful but they can produce something if you need "good enough" but if you demand actually good, they won't arrive ever.
The problem might be that it simply looks at it's windows of what it previously and repeats that. But the original statement might be as arbitrary as the model that change their mind each time you challenge them.
I think if you went back in time you could pay some power loom engineers to build you a pretty decent 4-8 bit microcontroller operating at 1-5 Hz (comparable to power looms at the time) and computer-controlled textiles would have paid for the computer revolution 75-100 years ahead of time.
Would it? You have to remember that the further you go back in time, the cheaper labor is relative to machinery. In the 19th century, you could pay a person for a multitude of customizations and so the market for custom cloth might not have been what you imagined.