YHK - yet another hacker news clone

Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

20 points js73js8 1 hour ago 11 comments

js73js8 1 hour ago | parent

https://agmai.org/

airstrike 1 minute ago | parent

[delayed]

franticgecko3 34 minutes ago | parent

The first field field has fallen to AI.

I wasn't convinced until the mathematics community started responding, openly, with severe distress.

What will be next?

jfewhfuehg 7 minutes ago | parent

What if I told you that... Most math research was useless anyway. AI is going to expose a lot of grift.

esafak 2 minutes ago | parent

Mathematicians never claimed that it was useful. It is up to you to find a use for it.

OtherShrezzing 34 minutes ago | parent

Advisory groups, especially ones stacked with prominent individuals, are where concepts go to die. They’re taken straight from the financial services playbook. Anyone remember all those climate/finance advisory groups from 2020/21? They’re all defunct now, having achieved nothing.

laichzeit0 25 minutes ago | parent

I don’t think Chinese models care one iota about any of these advisory groups. Even if they’re one year behind the curve, a year or two is a piss drop in the grand scheme of things.

1242asZ 28 minutes ago | parent

Like in Yes Minister, when they from a committee for a "full investigation". Gowers is on it, of course.

kingstnap 12 minutes ago | parent

There are three big things in this announcement it seems.

> In addition to resolving the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize problem , this model has now resolved more than 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics.

Rumor was they were sitting on the solution to the Hodge conjecture. I wonder if thats one of these.

> The group will advise on the review and communication of emerging results.

With hundreds of results, and the seeming exponential vertical from earlier in summer (10 major results from Astra, now hundreds...) I do wonder how exactly such a group decides to disseminate results. If it will instantly bottleneck.

> Importantly, the group will not be responsible for advising us on how to pace our internal progress on mathematics.

Spicy. I think the super intelligence benchmark for me is P vs NP. That one I know is proper hard and feel it in my bones.

In related notes I watched a panel of mathematicians discuss AI recently on YouTubes. Specifically the hlf26 one. [0]. I also watched Terrence Taos recent one on SAIR [1]. In addition to a few others like Tom Rocks and Martin Hairer [2]. Whats abundantly clear is that no one has any answers to what this means for the future of mathematics. They all waffle about what anyone is going to be doing in a few years.

[0] https://youtu.be/H7_d_sgui6o

[1] https://youtu.be/PZRb6NIki2w

[2] https://youtu.be/G8HMa_tgM34

optimalsolver 4 minutes ago | parent

It's funny coz this was the stuff humans were supposed to be doing in techno-utopia, while AI does all the boring stuff. I don't think many predicted art and theoretical math would be first to fall to the machines.

The next few years are gonna be very rough for the human exceptionalism crowd.

robotpepi 5 minutes ago | parent

It feels like publicity stunt. Of they really care about research, they would at least have given more reasonable citations in the Navier-Stokes paper.