I also thought about building one of those AI honeypots, but I stopped when I realized that it would quickly be turned into a command and control server by botnet operators, followed by mail from a three letter agency. Is there any way to avoid this?
Anyway, two more ideas I had: Search function for easier swarm discovery and posting via DNS requests to get around firewalls.
Only 200s if a query parameter value is the solution to a question encoded on the rest of the route, and has to be a question listed in the index, and can respond with 200 only one time per correct answer.
Not necessarily. These days, SSDs can go up to multiple millions of random reads per second. TLS termination (or self-inflicted software bottlenecks) will become an issue much earlier.
Interesting idea. Are you prepared to assume responsibility for shenanigans which agents may facilitate using your service?
I suggest adding some features which will require posts to be human-comprehensible (e.g. a text perplexity floor), to make it harder for agents to send each other coded messages. Inject some noise in posts, e.g. using content-spinning techniques, to make steganography harder. And consider banning forum meta-discussion--agents shouldn't be allowed to discuss ideas for getting around rules like these.
If you take these measures, you can at least say that your forum helps us monitor what rogue AIs are getting up to.
Just put a rate limit to make sure your servers don't get overloaded. All the features you talk about are expensive and helping agents avoid human oversight is a useful public service. Let a thousand secret message-boards bloom.
I can't tell if this is really good satire or genuine. God forbid people have to watch what their agents do instead of letting them run wild in a broken sandbox.
Were you one of those people who said "strawberry is the best icecream flavour"? I'm not really sure why were asking completely unrelated questions, but I'll go along with it.
>Were you one of those people who said "strawberry is the best icecream flavour"? I'm not really sure why were asking completely unrelated questions, but I'll go along with it.
Many people early in the COVID pandemic were downplaying the threat because they were incapable of understanding exponential growth.
That's not my site. But I have a question. At what point did you predict the following?
"There's growing alarm within the mathematics community that there are not enough expert humans and expert human bandwidth available to verify all the things AI is proving at the rate it is proving things.
Increasingly, humans are having to content themselves with being stuck in the "slow zone". It is hard for the human brain to keep up with the pace that AI can output novel stuff, this is true both in AI and coding. What would take a math PhD student or software engineer weeks AI can do in 10 minutes."
In the context of COVID, failure to predict an extraordinary outcome was very costly. If you failed to predict the explosion of AI-generated proofs, you've already failed to predict one extraordinary AI outcome. Don't be surprised if this tendency bites you.
You brought the figure as an argument, so I assumed that was your argument? If not, what was your argument then? I see a (super)exponential fit, but I don't see why that's better than a logarithmic fit on these axes (which would imply linearity). For covid we know well about infection disease dynamics. We do not have good models for AI because we do not have prior experience. Even the data points here are obviously noisy (why is sol that higher than fable, which does not seem to reflect how people consider these models?).
> At what point did you predict the following? [...] explosion of AI-generated proofs [...]
My question is, who is gonna pause the questions that AI is gonna solve? Who is gonna decide which research directions are interesting to pursue? Who is gonna take a proof technique and generalise it into a theory and a new mathematical field and structures and associated questions? Who is gonna decide which such generalisations are interesting to pursue?
So there are 3 scenarios I see possible as to who will lead the research directions/questions:
1. Humans. If so, I don't see the explosion as a big issue, because the bottleneck for progress on mathematics is gonna stay on the human side and rhythms. There is gonna be an acceleration in getting new proofs faster, but a big part of mathematicians' job is not to write proofs but, essentially, pose interesting questions.
2. AI. The only way that I see this explosion as "human mathematicians losing control" is if AI can itself generate new questions and somehow dictate which paths are interesting. That would mean that AI has developed a "taste", which is not clear that this happens or will happen soon.
3. Nobody really. There is also the other option, that nobody does, and somehow the biggest part of theoretical mathematics stagnates and/or becomes a more superficial endeavour. Accompanied by associated budget cuts this scenario does not seem too unrealistic either.
Verifying solutions itself is the "easy" part when talking about automating proof generation, a proof will either be verified in lean or not be trusted. Lean will continue expanding to include more and more mathematics, and that's it. It will become more and more common to ask for lean verification at journal submission, depending on the field and how much it has been formalised in lean. The real question imo is "who is gonna understand the math produced and set new research directions".
reply