Having the ability to throw math heavy ML papers at the assistants and get simplified explanations / pseudocode back is absolutely amazing, as someone who's forgot most of what I learned in uni, 25+ years back and never really used it since.
'Vibe formalizing' is a logical extension of 'vibe engineering' implemented by 'vibe coding'. Sometimes I have trouble with getting the individual puzzle pieces of a problem to fall into place, where a hypothetical 'Move 37 As A Service' to unify informal methods with mathematical rigor deserves to be explored!
Thankfully it's mathematics, so people powerscaling their idols, deifying them at the detriment of others, and putting terms into quotes mockingly, is not what determines whether results hold or not. Perhaps the only field not fundamentally shackled by this type of quackery, even if people try their hardest from time to time to make it so.
I'm sorry that I insulted your "AI" deus ex machina. For power users it is hard to understand that most hypes end around two years after their inception.
It's fine, at least you admit that what you wrote was just to insult.
For people who at least pretend to care to not think in strawmans, it's been six years, and their deus has never exited said machina (if it's ever been in there to begin with, or anywhere else).
Because he is smart enough to use the existing (frontier) tools to get good results and create a sort of collaborative environment that is novel for research maths.
Collaborative environment meaning that any PFY employed by the "AI" providers can read your most intimate thought processes and keep track of embarrassing failures or misconceptions.
The embarrassing failures or misconceptions of math experts with regards to research level mathematics? Definitely a serious problem.
Though by your "Perelman and Wiles didn't need "AI" assistance" comment, you'd surely be there on the sidelines to ridicule them for each and every single one. I guess maybe that's where your concerns are coming from?
I can practically see how these concerns of yours would suddenly evaporate if they started using self-hosted models instead... ... yeah, right, who are we kidding?
Having the ability to throw math heavy ML papers at the assistants and get simplified explanations / pseudocode back is absolutely amazing, as someone who's forgot most of what I learned in uni, 25+ years back and never really used it since.
'Vibe formalizing' is a logical extension of 'vibe engineering' implemented by 'vibe coding'. Sometimes I have trouble with getting the individual puzzle pieces of a problem to fall into place, where a hypothetical 'Move 37 As A Service' to unify informal methods with mathematical rigor deserves to be explored!
Also interesting that the responses include anti-Lean material.
Due to his position and general fame, Tao has to deal with a larger-than-usual number of kooks.
They should name one of the AI's "Erdos". Then we can all have an Erdos number of one!
There is an AI-integrated IDE called Erdos...
https://www.lotas.ai/erdos
Perelman and Wiles didn't need "AI" assistance. Tao is one of the few who is constantly hyping Lean and "AI".
Thankfully it's mathematics, so people powerscaling their idols, deifying them at the detriment of others, and putting terms into quotes mockingly, is not what determines whether results hold or not. Perhaps the only field not fundamentally shackled by this type of quackery, even if people try their hardest from time to time to make it so.
I'm sorry that I insulted your "AI" deus ex machina. For power users it is hard to understand that most hypes end around two years after their inception.
It's fine, at least you admit that what you wrote was just to insult.
For people who at least pretend to care to not think in strawmans, it's been six years, and their deus has never exited said machina (if it's ever been in there to begin with, or anywhere else).
Because he is smart enough to use the existing (frontier) tools to get good results and create a sort of collaborative environment that is novel for research maths.
Collaborative environment meaning that any PFY employed by the "AI" providers can read your most intimate thought processes and keep track of embarrassing failures or misconceptions.
The embarrassing failures or misconceptions of math experts with regards to research level mathematics? Definitely a serious problem.
Though by your "Perelman and Wiles didn't need "AI" assistance" comment, you'd surely be there on the sidelines to ridicule them for each and every single one. I guess maybe that's where your concerns are coming from?
I can practically see how these concerns of yours would suddenly evaporate if they started using self-hosted models instead... ... yeah, right, who are we kidding?