I’m no big AI cheerleader, but why don’t you try these models to see what they offer - they might suggest some things you haven’t thought of, or save you some time in your research.
Are you sure they’d one-shot your algorithm? Maybe they’d come up with worse, maybe better, but you are in a perfect position to actually judge the validity of any claims a LLM makes in this realm, which most people are not.
As to why bother; our knowledge will keep expanding even with new tools, don’t believe either the hype or the predictions of doom.
>> I’m no big AI cheerleader, but why don’t you try these models to see what they offer - they might suggest some things you haven’t thought of, or save you some time in your research.
One reason not to try is to create an air gap between the OP's ideas and the data that future models can train on. We saw that the mathematicians who trusted OpenAI and Anthropic with their preliminary work found the rug pulled out of their feet by those same companies.
Another reason is to avoid inadvertently plagiarising the work of other mathematicians. Any mathematical insight that comes out of an LLM is the result of training on the entire bibliography of mathematical research, but those insights are spat out of the models without attribution. If you use AI in your matematical research you are only using the work of others without even knowing who they are and what they contributed.
And yet another reason is to avoid polluting your mind with the ideas that come out of the AI. Maybe you get a hint that pushes you to one direction, when you would go into an entirely other direction without that hint. And then maybe that becomes a habit and you can't find new directions without asking the all-knowing oracle.
tl;dr: opsec, integrity and independence are the reasons to not use LLMs in your research. I don't.
Unless you’re very weak-willed, I wouldn’t worry about independence. LLMs make mistakes all the time, they are nothing like an all-knowing oracle nor are they going to replace humans despite the absurd fantasies of LLM fans and those with a vested interest.
Plagiarism is an interesting point, though honestly I think it would be fairly easy to work out who had published similar research if the LLM gives you an idea - personally I see this as the weakest argument against using them, as long as you are strict about attribution - all work like this depends heavily on the research of others - the LLM is just a tool to aid that research IMO.
Opsec is a fair point, and it might be worth avoiding the completely amoral OpenAI at this point for that reason. There are open models though.
Absurd fantasies like solving a Millennium Prize Problem? How is this not prima facie absurd? And if that's come to pass, why should we believe your bar for anything else?
It is quite possible to be wrong and not annoy people, and it's not even terribly difficult to learn. It does require a bit of humility and introspection though.
You don't have to not stray into areas you don't understand, but be humble when doing so - if you think something is being done in a stupid way, you probably don't understand it yet.
Surely you'd also have to ban phones and other devices with microphones? All these devices can trivially be set up to record, so if your goal is full security, you should be a no phones workplace.
This is the part where you repeat the same comment and substitute in modifying the software, opening the device and putting in listening hardware, putting a microphone under your skin, attaching a microcontroller to their outside walls to analyze vibration patterns, etc. Luckily, the world doesn't operate on pedantry. They care about removing 99% of attack vectors, the remaining 1% is covered by you being on the line. If your office permits outside recording hardware, someone 'forgetting' that their device was recording is a mishap. But if it only approves certain devices and finds out you did James Bond-level gadgetry to circumvent their measures, guess what image that'll paint on you.
I imagine this is why Apple has kept the mic array and camera as separate removeable components in their devices when pretty much everything else is integrated.
If it’s an Apple device, it’s pretty easy to verify, if you’re not getting into the realm of spycraft. Open the stock recording app from the store and try to record after verifying the preferences allow recording. This is sufficient for catching bad actors who don’t have immense resources behind them. Even easier if it’s a managed device.
If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period, metal detectors and patdowns on both entry and exit.
So to enforce "to ban phones and other devices with microphones" you'd require the user hand over this phone and you grant access to operate it. I can imagine difficulties.
> If you’re worried about legit espionage, you hold the meeting or do the work in a SCIF, zero devices go in or out period
Well the problem with that is it would bar required phones and other devices.
Many workplaces already require MDM for devices. Some don’t allow unmanaged onsite devices at all. It just depends on the sensitivity of the work. Maybe you haven’t been onsite at a defense contractor or a large financial firm, it can get very restrictive and you basically sign over a lot of your rights to work there.
> Well the problem with that is it would bar required phones and other devices.
That’s the point. Nothing goes in or out except through tightly controlled channels. SCIFs aren’t theoretical, they are in frequent use especially for anyone touching classified info. Large enterprises sometimes use similar facilities as needed for highly sensitive meetings where they can’t afford for anything to be leaked.
I imagine that some workplaces will have to become more security conscious, and others (in two-party states) will have to make it clear to employees that recording without permission from others is illegal and the company will both sue and file charges.
If we’re talking about unattainable dreams, I want a scroll rather than a folding phone - it’d be much better than a me-too form factor like this.
Don’t expect this to sell well - too big for trouser pockets and not enough advantages to the form factor, plus inevitably wear will make it either unprofitable for Apple or an expensive mistake for the purchaser.
The price point also outs it squarely in the luxury end of the market rather than mass-market.
LlMs don’t understand, they generate, though they have fooled a lot of people who should know better.
reply