Why is this important? Do you not think that at some point, probably sooner rather than later, math researchers across the world will have access to similar capabilities?
This is sort of like discounting putting humans in space because only a few nations have the means to actually do it at the moment.
Some people seem to absolutely refuse to understand that a lot of open source is done for the authors' personal enjoyment. There is absolutely no reason they have to accept AI contributions, no matter how much the author of this tweet wishes, and plenty of excellent reasons why they might not (e.g. they actually enjoy programming and the practice of programming). This would be true even if AI generated code were completely indistinguishable from human authored code, which it is not.
Employees at the companies that do this stuff know exactly what these regulations are for and are violating them quite deliberately. They don't actually think it's "government bureaucracy" whatever they tell the public.
The article claims that "for the first time, string theory is testable," when in reality:
* the tests here concern particles that aren't actually known to exist yet
* lots of variants of string theory can be invalidated by the (non)existence of particles at particular masses or with particular properties
* moreover, this kind of invalidation has already happened on many occasions
* as usual it's only some models of string theory that are ruled out
So the headline and article are both kind of rubbish. In this case I wouldn't even say it's just a misleading headline because the article acts as though some (or even lots of) models of string theory getting hypothetically ruled out by a particle having a certain mass is a brand new thing.
Yeah people don't seem to get that the whole point of having a tightly checked kernel is so you don't have to care so much about the rest of it. Tactic heavy proofs have been "slop" long before LLMs got involved, and they lean heavily on the kernel rejecting nonsense.
People are very desperate to try to claim that something that's somewhat obviously morally wrong is actually highly nuanced, because it makes them feel uncomfortable.
I would disagree on the "obviously morally wrong". What's the alternative for the books if they were "saved" from the fate of being scanned and shredded? How many rare books have you personally brought in the last year? Not everything that's ever created needs to be preserved forever.
Yes, clearly it's completely absurd to think that shredding rare books to more cheaply train LLMs is anything but a moral good, which is why there is this entire thread is full of people jumping through hoops to explain how it's technically legal (and therefore fine) and "you wouldn't have bought those books anyway" (I suppose we don't have the choice anymore!) and, most amusingly, "they're actually becoming digitized and searchable this way" (are LLMs stochastic parrots or aren't they?).
Given that in the US we dispose of 640,000 tons of books each year, this attempt to inflate outrage is just ridiculous. Books are not things of intrinsic moral value; they are morally neutral physical objects.
To the extent the information in a book is something to preserve, this scanning is a good thing.
reply