If a prompt can solve a useful math proof, then someone else will find that prompt. In which case, openAI won't get the street cred(wall street) it needs. Nobody is hiding secrets to gain advantage in this environment.
What's the $-value of some street cred/publicity vs. $-value of finding some optimization trick that reduces training/inference cost by millions compared to their competitors? Of course they're going to keep that IP to themselves.
OpenAI cracked these frontier math proofs using models and amount of compute not available to general public. It's not the case that anyone can put "solve Navier–Stokes" in ChatGPT and get solution. Although less well-known problems can be solved with publicly available models.
Indeed. Their model they showed off that was ~5x better than 6 Astra in certain domains including mathematics is not public and I doubt they'd release it. They distill their internal large into their public models.
I think it depends on the situation. If there are profitable applications, they might keep the proof to themselves, but I agree with you in most cases.
Stupid me thinking they only spent time on brute force-able problems with pure compute, not sure there's much intelligence here. What could a mathematician do with $20M worth of compute to try to brute force one single problem?
My assumption on cryptography was that any published result could potentially help had actors, was unlikely to help good actors, and better to stay away completely. Can definitely see why they'd research but not publish in the other areas though.
> get something that helps us understand what is going on, and live to see a better future.
Nah, I don't really buy the sales pitch that ultra advanced math will give us a better future. For decades we've had ultra advanced math already before AI like geometric langlands, higher topos theory, and Waldhausen categories and it's done nothing to give us a better future.
Maybe it helps to train people to think abstractly and inspire technical people through the beauty of math but that's only when it was a human endeavor anyway.
The idea of going to even more layers of abstraction and complexity with AI may be possible but it's just a mental game at that point and isn't going to help anyone. It will just waste energy.
As far as I'm concerned (as a former mathematician), they can take their new discoveries and shove it. Yes, science does help us live easier lives in some way but it doesn't follow that endless new discoveries always been better lives past a certain point. And I think this is a prime example of that.
well I for one thank the mathematicians engaging in number theory when there weren't any practical applications. it took a few hundred years for the technology to catch up to where its the reason we can even have a semblance of privacy in the modern age via cryptography.
the lesson there is that we have no way to know what the the abstract useless math today will enable us in the future.
Remember, Trump has said if you don't use SI instead of AI you are an enemy. So, this title should be changed to "The math that OpenSI keeps for itself."
If a prompt can solve a useful math proof, then someone else will find that prompt. In which case, openAI won't get the street cred(wall street) it needs. Nobody is hiding secrets to gain advantage in this environment.
What's the $-value of some street cred/publicity vs. $-value of finding some optimization trick that reduces training/inference cost by millions compared to their competitors? Of course they're going to keep that IP to themselves.
OpenAI cracked these frontier math proofs using models and amount of compute not available to general public. It's not the case that anyone can put "solve Navier–Stokes" in ChatGPT and get solution. Although less well-known problems can be solved with publicly available models.
Indeed. Their model they showed off that was ~5x better than 6 Astra in certain domains including mathematics is not public and I doubt they'd release it. They distill their internal large into their public models.
I think it depends on the situation. If there are profitable applications, they might keep the proof to themselves, but I agree with you in most cases.
Stupid me thinking they only spent time on brute force-able problems with pure compute, not sure there's much intelligence here. What could a mathematician do with $20M worth of compute to try to brute force one single problem?
My assumption on cryptography was that any published result could potentially help had actors, was unlikely to help good actors, and better to stay away completely. Can definitely see why they'd research but not publish in the other areas though.
[dead]
> get something that helps us understand what is going on, and live to see a better future.
Nah, I don't really buy the sales pitch that ultra advanced math will give us a better future. For decades we've had ultra advanced math already before AI like geometric langlands, higher topos theory, and Waldhausen categories and it's done nothing to give us a better future.
Maybe it helps to train people to think abstractly and inspire technical people through the beauty of math but that's only when it was a human endeavor anyway.
The idea of going to even more layers of abstraction and complexity with AI may be possible but it's just a mental game at that point and isn't going to help anyone. It will just waste energy.
As far as I'm concerned (as a former mathematician), they can take their new discoveries and shove it. Yes, science does help us live easier lives in some way but it doesn't follow that endless new discoveries always been better lives past a certain point. And I think this is a prime example of that.
Thinking about giving “us” a better future makes me wonder how many people alive don’t even have access to clean water or electricity.
well I for one thank the mathematicians engaging in number theory when there weren't any practical applications. it took a few hundred years for the technology to catch up to where its the reason we can even have a semblance of privacy in the modern age via cryptography.
the lesson there is that we have no way to know what the the abstract useless math today will enable us in the future.
Maybe it is just me, but what annoys me even more than the AI-slop texts is the uniform Claude, ripoff visual designs everywhere.
Remember, Trump has said if you don't use SI instead of AI you are an enemy. So, this title should be changed to "The math that OpenSI keeps for itself."