331
OpenAI Is Pissing Off a Bunch of Mathematicians—Again
(www.wired.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2026
331 points (97.7% liked)
Technology
88734 readers
2957 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Unfortunately, just because a proof holds doesn't mean the problem is solved. It just means that the proof proofs. The proof can still be utter nonsense if it isn't structured properly and actually modeling the right thing. Moreover, even if it is a real proof, that doesn't actually do anything for us until we understand it.
Spot on, this is the thing people often miss out.
These problems aren't actual problems in the way most people think about. They are problems in the way that they are exercises. Like the Navier Stokes problem is reporting in the news like one of the biggest problems in maths ever. Leading people to think we are stuck on it and can't progress in some way without a solution. But in reality the limitations of the equation are well known and don't impact normal every day use. And in cases where they would, we have other tools at our disposal.
The goal of these problems is to challenge mathematical people and push boundaries. Having a proof pop out of nowhere is like having someone tell you the answer to a question, where the whole goal was to formulate the answer yourself. The answer itself is meaningless, that's why you get 0 points on the exam unless you show the workings out. It's like having a movie spoiled for you, the goal wasn't to know the outcome, the goal was the experience the story yourself.
Working backwards from some proof might lead to insights, but it also might not and be harder than working forwards. It also might pick a certain path, where there were multiple and we would be blind to the other paths. Those other paths might lead to more insights, if we had explored them.
The way OpenAI specifically has approached this is also very weird and awful in my opinion. Like they set their sights on yet again ruining some aspect of the world with AI and then throwing billions of dollars at it to make sure it's properly ruined. For what purpose exactly? Not to make any money, that's for sure, they are 2 trillion in the hole and counting.
Looks like you have a misunderstanding of what a mathematical proof is. I have but a mere bachelor's in applied mathematics and employed as a statistical engineer for a couple decades now. If a proof is successful at showing a mathematical statement is true, it's a done deal. It doesn't work like science which relies on mathematical models to explain its anecdotes.