Rather than sitting on these results until they had enough for a "shock and awe" 10-result dump, how about releasing these results individually as they were made/verified, as well as the failures (equally valuable to assess the current capabilities of LLMs), and try to make some analysis of HOW these breakthrough results were made. What were the prompts for each of these, how much guidance was there from the mathematicians employed by OpenAI, and most importantly how did the model arrive at these results ... what lines of reasoning resulted it in exploring ideas that humans had previously not explored?
Where were all the mathematicians and academics in general when “regular joe” was automated? Now it’s hitting close to home and their foreheads are starting to get sweaty. I’d say let them. Tough luck. Make mathematics as “cheap” as possible. Nobody owes them any favors.
Let’s commoditize “being smart” and let go of arbitrary divisions between us.
It's also a funny historical mirror to an earlier phase of math proof culture: in a previous era, cryptic result dumps were quite common.
I hope this will be normal practice eventually. “Show your work” is trivial if you use AI to solve a problem.
Understanding never was the goal, results were. We will be getting boatloads of those. What does your understanding get us? You get a fancy house out of it and you might be intellectually stimulated by it, sure, but I hope you can see how that does not constitute a valid need for the rest of society to labor just to support your class and its lifestyle.
Whoa, how quickly have we forgotten how the AI is trained?
> You get a fancy house […] society to labor just to support your class and its lifestyle.
Wait, how much money do you think math teachers make? Do you know how much money AI engineers make in comparison? Why the animus and insecurity toward education? You are making math teachers sound far more rich and powerful than they actually are.
> Understanding never was the goal
Hard disagree
People are having a rough time figuring out that good design and fundamentals no longer align with the business side of things.
It seems you're fighting an hallucinated enemy.
You are of course free to wield this new technology any way you choose (to the extent its owners and your wallet allow you to, for now at least), and if you can enrich yourself by doing so power to you. I won't attempt to dissuade you from your apparent hatred of those who have spent their lives trying to expand the boundaries of human understanding. I'll just state my equally emotion-driven opposing view: It always was and always will be about the understanding. "Results" and "progress" without sufficient thought are the reason our enormous modern wealth is accompanied by so much human misery.
I don't relish the prospect of living in your predicted world of multiplying technology untempered by human thought, if that's what happens to emerge. I don't think it will be a good place for anyone but a handful of the very richest. Good luck adding yourself to their number.
OpenAI sat on the results so they could drop 10 at a time. It's rumored that they are sitting more results: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/513818/a-serious-challeng...
So not only are we not going to get boatloads of results, we're only get as many results as necessary for OpenAI to market their models.
We hacked 3 companies and tripple blame the tool! We are even cooler!
We hacked companies amd therefore other peoples models need to be restricted! See, us accidentally pointing a hacking tool on others proove we are the only ones that can be trusted with the tool!
> “GPT solved a math problem” -> “Claude solved a math problem” -> “GPT escaped the sandbox” -> “Claude escaped the sandbox” -> …
It s like a rich man showing off his car collection.
Go back 100 years and 15 percent of the population was "Farmer", and 30 percent were in some sort of "domestic" work.
Most modern jobs are a product of the fact that technology continues to advance. And by all measures it does not look like "ai" is going to change that.
In practice automation is great, as long as it doesn’t hit “the ones that matter” (a label which they themselves assign). I find it very hard to not imagine the smallest, tiniest violin playing the saddest song for them.
Again, “respect for mathematicians” and “their work”.. please. Just produce results. That’s all that ever mattered and let’s not change the rules of the game just because they don’t suit you anymore.