While I see lots of discussion about AI solving these problems, I feel like there's a more sinister undercurrent that's is less discussed - about who did the solving. It wasn't academics empowered by AI, but OpenAI themselves.
I feel like it's a sign of what's to come - large AI companies with resources academia never had, at some point deciding that selling access to AI is not as important as just doing the research themselves with models inaccessible to anyone else. The end game is all scientific advancement will be done by one or two companies, who will reap all the profits. Why would they give access to a model that develops a cure for cancer when they could develop the cure themselves and get all the money?
(Kind of like Amazon coming out with their own products - use the greater community for ideas, then become a competitor at a scale they often cannot match).
I wonder how many chat logs they did use in model's training data? If model consumes human’s reasoning (the chat logs) and then presents results as its own, it's a kind of parasite right?
Harvesting collective output of human consciousness to build AI that then replaces the very people who provided the input.
While I see lots of discussion about AI solving these problems, I feel like there's a more sinister undercurrent that's is less discussed - about who did the solving. It wasn't academics empowered by AI, but OpenAI themselves.
I feel like it's a sign of what's to come - large AI companies with resources academia never had, at some point deciding that selling access to AI is not as important as just doing the research themselves with models inaccessible to anyone else. The end game is all scientific advancement will be done by one or two companies, who will reap all the profits. Why would they give access to a model that develops a cure for cancer when they could develop the cure themselves and get all the money?
(Kind of like Amazon coming out with their own products - use the greater community for ideas, then become a competitor at a scale they often cannot match).
Gift link: https://www.nytimes.com/2026/10/08/science/mathematicians-re...
>If a human did this, it would be an instant Fields Medal, no questions asked.
- Alex Kontorovich, chair of the department of mathematics at Rutgers
Not your fault - and thanks for the gift link - but NYT still wanted me to login to read it.
Their prerogative, but no thanks.
I get this comment so often when I post NYT gift links now, I guess I should always include the archive link to prevent them:
https://archive.is/ANnky
I wonder how many chat logs they did use in model's training data? If model consumes human’s reasoning (the chat logs) and then presents results as its own, it's a kind of parasite right?
Harvesting collective output of human consciousness to build AI that then replaces the very people who provided the input.
[delayed]
Related:
Reactions to 100 Solutions
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50019499
Is it paywalled just for me?