logoalt Hacker News

georgemcbay • yesterday at 7:58 PM • 6 replies • view on HN

Sure, but given the approximate tens of millions of dollars in API costs of solving these major math problems currently, we will also have to acknowledge that getting credit for major mathematical contributions is likely now to be far less about meritocracy and far more about access to capital to kickstart the original proof.

Less capable (but good enough) mathematicians with more capital will have a huge advantage over great mathematicians who are broke.

I'm not a mathematician, but that situation rubs everyone (except those with the most capital) the wrong way.


Replies

JacobAsmuth • yesterday at 8:29 PM

Tens of millions? You're thinking specifically of the proof of Navier-Stokes. According to https://github.com/openai/math/blob/main/README.md:

"On average, each result used three hours of ChatGPT Pro thinking compute with that model. Over the course of the evaluation, the model was posed approximately 4,000 problems. Aggregating the output into result families and manuscripts and requiring an appropriate level of significance led to the catalog outlined above."

I will note that this includes the Quasi Riemann Hypothesis. The model that solved NS was significantly dumber and less efficient that OpenAIs more recent math-models and you shouldn't over index on "it's expensive now". AI has advanced so quickly that your <2 month old opinion is out of date by 5+ orders of magnitude!

➕ show 1 reply
neerajsi • yesterday at 8:23 PM

This is true in experimental sciences, where people who have grants and funding can obtain results using equipment unavailable to others. But their raw data can help much less funded theory groups to formulate new understanding that can lead to new experiments.

As long as the raw proofs, potentially ai generated, are available a lot of less funded mathematicians can still use them to generate understanding and created new programs to be resolved with new ai aided mathematical experiments.

➕ show 1 reply
danielmarkbruce • yesterday at 8:39 PM

I never had a chance against Terence Tao. Neither did you. There are a few dozen people on the planet who had a giant advantage in math and could do things no one else could do.

It was not some great awesome fair thing that math was dominated by some outrageous outliers on the iq spectrum. It's not some great awesome fair thing now either.

➕ show 1 reply
asgraham • yesterday at 8:20 PM

This has unfortunately been the case in experimental academia forever.

Animats • yesterday at 8:37 PM

For now. It once took Deep Blue hardware to beat Kasparov. Now most laptops can do it.