"I have found it works surprisingly well for writing mathematical LaTeX, as well as formalizing in Lean; indeed, it assisted in writing this very article by suggesting several sentences as I was writing, many of which I retained or lightly edited for the final version. While the quality of its suggestions is highly variable, it can sometimes display an uncanny level of simulated understanding of the intent of the text."
Tao is one of the few mathematicians who is constantly singing the praises of specifically ChatGPT and now CoPilot. He does not appear to have any issues that his thought processes are logged by servers owned by a multi-billion dollar company.
He never mentions copyright or social issues. He never mentions results other than "writing LaTeX is easier".
> He does not appear to have any issues that his thought processes are logged by servers owned by a multi-billion dollar company.
His job is publishing his thoughts. They're not going to a single company, but everyone. If he gets results faster, we all get to see his thought process faster.
Ideally, chatgpt would be familiar with everything coming from researchers like him.
> constantly singing the praises of specifically ChatGPT and now CoPilot
Chatgpt is mentioned just once and only as a "such as" example.
Something I've noted about all advanced tools is that the inept fear them, the capable use them, and the elite embrace them wholeheartedly.
Everything from IDEs to Google search gets the same treatment.
I remember a colleague watching me edit code exclaiming that I was "Cheating!" because I had syntax highlighting and tab-completion.
Another coworker who had just failed to get answers after searching for "My PC crashed, how to fix?" kept telling me that the results "couldn't be trusted". He was reading Windows XP bug reports over a decade out-of-date for troubleshooting a Windows Server 2022 issue that manifests only on Azure.
Some people are afraid of these things and suspect there's a hidden agenda, others see things for what they are: Just tools, each fit for a particular purpose.
Is this phobia angle the new talking point? "If you fear our tool for a hefty subscription price while we are logging all your data, you are inept?"
My experience is exactly the opposite: Inept power users jump on the latest bandwagon to camouflage their incompetence. And like true power users they evangelize their latest toy whenever they can.
> Some people are afraid of these things and suspect there's a hidden agenda, others see things for what they are: Just tools, each fit for a particular purpose.
Well, there's also the arms-race scenario. A classic example is computer security: people only make computers more secure because people hack them, which makes hackers improve their stuff. This prisoner's dilemma scenario gives a deterministic force to technology that certainly makes it more than just a tool: it is a force that acts upon society that transcends human choice.
At this stage Tao should disclose whether he has any financial relationship with OpenAI, including stock ownership or even access to experimental models or more computational power than the average user.
I've never seen any academic hyping up a company like that, unless they explicitly have/had a financial relationship like Scott Aaronson.
Tenured professors are at no risk of losing jobs and have minimum business interests. The literal smartest person in the world will be the last person to lose his job anyway.
AI anxiety comes from a fear that AI will replace us, individuals or corporate entities alike. Tao is immune to these risks.
Tao is one of the few mathematicians who is constantly singing the praises of specifically ChatGPT and now CoPilot. He does not appear to have any issues that his thought processes are logged by servers owned by a multi-billion dollar company.
He never mentions copyright or social issues. He never mentions results other than "writing LaTeX is easier".
Does he have any incentive for promoting OpenAI?