Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- I find it sad that I can't use the site as a tracker for solved problems anymore.by bananaflag
- >and, most significantly, there has been a wave of AI-produced solutions provided with no explanation.
Counter productive and dumb, although not dumb from the viewpoint of an AI company trying to win hearts and minds hoping that translates into revenue.
Lots of mathematical problems require WORK, and now we have a homunculus to do the work. Indeed most AI companies are oriented toward brute forcing every way forward in order to claim the prize of being profitable.
This could genuinely serve the purpose of mathematical understanding for humanity, but in the short run it is a series of stunts. In the long run I am optimistic that we will benefit.
by Isamu - It is becoming exceedingly difficult to ignore that the benefits of AI accrue disproportionately to those most deficient of scruples, while its costs and harms fall upon the selfless and pleasant like laser-guided virtue-seeking munitions.
I do not particularly care to debate a theory of why it is so, nor press a charge of malice or intent; mere observation suffices to convince me that this shit is corrosive to the better nature of humanity.
by fwlr - "I believe that websites with this function should exist -- places where people can record AI-generated proofs, even if purely formal with no human understanding, to save others wasting their tokens generating the same proof, and so that other people can access and use them if they desire. There are now several candidates for such repositories, and if managed responsibly, they can serve a useful role in the mathematical ecosystem. I personally don't want to manage one.
Just as one does not open a restaurant in an abattoir, it is important that there be a separation between such repositories and a site which aims to promote the actual questions, place them in an appropriate context, and give a useful overview of the current state of human understanding."
I think this is a very reasonable blog post overall. A site for agents to read has many different needs and concerns than one for humans. Really anthropic or openai should be whipping this up for theirs.
by nemomarx - A welcome change, people posting AI-generated proof to claim credits are the scourge on mankind discoveries. It's time everyone that still hasn't, let go of their ego. All Hail the era of elegance.by Qiu_Zhanxuan
- > I think it is against the spirit of Erdős to regard any problem as 'closed' -- whenever one form of a question is answered, many others are created, and all problems deserve continued attention.
But I thought the whole idea of the list was that it catalogued precisely the problems Erdos posed that he did not solve. The broader set of "all problems Erdos found interesting, including those he resolved" would be both larger and I suspect qualitatively different.
by dooglius - Instead of succumbing, this reads like a considered adaptation to modern conditions.
They are thinking about what it is they do and what their intent was in doing it. Their adaptation is not a blind resistance to change but to preserve their intent.
I especially that they explicitly state that this is what they are trying and that not dropping a decree of new rules that are set in stone.
More platforms should take this approach.
by Lerc - (Title is my clickbaiting)
From the link:
"The main way that people publicly interact with the site now is to advertise their AI-generated proofs, often without any attempt to explain them, but as a way to record a (increasingly meaningless) priority claim.
This is very different to what I imagined, and I don't want to manage a website which does this."
by pfdietz