The research community is in uproar after OpenAI released a trove of more than 700 mathematical preprints entirely generated by AI on 6 October. The San Francisco, California-based maker of ChatGPT posted the preprints on the software repository Github.

Although some mathematicians celebrated the solution of longstanding problems, others took to social media to complain about being scooped. Some were incensed at what one physicist called a ‘slopocalypse’, even if the mathematical content could end up being formally correct.

  • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1004·
    3 days ago

    I saw the Wired article yesterday, it’s worse than it sounds.

    For at least one of the problems an OpneAI researcher initiated a partnership with a mathametician, loaded all of his work into a chatbot without his knowledge, and then published the result as 100% from the chatbot in this “trove”.

    When the mathematician confronted the OpenAI employee, he was told sharing credit was “too complicated” so they wouldn’t acknowledge he had already mostly had it done. When he tried to push back, OpenAI then threatened his career if he tried to tell people what had happened.

    It’s is very very unlikely that was a single case. If that happened once, they definitely at least tried it more than once.

    Even if it actually solved anything, taking in years of human work and then spitting out one last step is nowhere near what they’re portraying this as. They’re intentionally making it sound like they just gave the chat or the problem and it solved what a human couldn’t.

    All it did was steal human work and rush publication

    • [object Object]@lemmy.caEnglish
      22·
      3 days ago

      The whole threatening careers thing happened with navier stokes too.

      These people are completely rotten to the core.

    • SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.caEnglish
      12·
      3 days ago

      OpenAI then threatened his career if he tried to tell people what had happened.

      and thus ended academic collaborations with OpenAI.

      • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
        34·
        3 days ago

        I don’t know what you’re trying to say, and I feel like you don’t either.

        This means people will stop sharing work and insights with each other, which has never before been the case.

        That part was clearly, but obviously false on multiple levels

          • givesomefucks@lemmy.worldEnglish
            27·
            3 days ago

            I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao

            That doesn’t even mean you’re saying the same thing bud…

            Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

            Do you think “non-mathematicians” think solving a math problem magically gets someone a check? Like, if anythi g you have it backwards

            You’re way off on everything though.

            You should paraphrase less, wait till after you understand what you’re reading.