Hugo Duminil-Copin, who won the Fields Medal in 2022 for his work on phase transitions in statistical physics, says the last few weeks have taken a real emotional toll on him, to the point where he broke down crying badly enough one night that it woke his daughter.Speaking during a video call hosted by the French Mathematical Society on October 8, Duminil-Copin described OpenAI’s latest math dump as having wiped out years of his own research agenda in one go. He said that nearly every open problem he had flagged in his lectures, papers and grant applications had suddenly been resolved, and that it felt like getting hit by a truck.
>>17073442id love to punch that big ass nose of his
>>17073442>I am so smart that I can't find a job outside of a school.Do we really need so many math researchers? Why can't they work in engineering or at investment funds?
>>17073442>Hugo Duminil-Copinmore likeHuge Dummynil Copin'
>>17073442What if another human solved them. Wouldn't he be in the same situation?
>>17073442>he broke down cryingWhy does he look like Sam Altman pre-nosejob?
>>17073454>Why can't they work in engineering or at investment funds?cuz AI does that shit now
>>17073510the modern jewish math racket is designed to only have 1 person working on every random obscure problem
>>17073523Is this actually true? I heard people talk about a grand math council that you have to get permission from to solve math questions but i thought they were memes
>>17073542yes its true just ask any professor if you ever do a phd.
>>17073510I remember some years back (perhaps 2017 or so) where someone published an alleged proof of P != NP. It was enough to send the complexity theory people into a ruckus lmao, it was similar to what is happening today. Of course, the proof was wrong, it was based on some non-monotone lower bounds that people knew to be impossible since the early 90s lol.
>>17073454kek based
>>17073651Sure but the lean proof would be correct but not true. How does he know the OpenAI proofs are legit?
>>17073442I'm so glad all these faggot gatekeeping PhD losers who get paid to just sit around solving useless maths "problems" are going to lose their jobs. They thought they were so much smarter and superior to others, but it turns out a bunch of codemonkeys can create software to solve all the maths problems without them. Get fucked, cunts.
>>17073542>that you have to get permission from to solve math questions but i thought they were memesYou need so for the grant money.Without grants you need to get a job doing something else because hunger and rent and stop working on math.
>>17073972Except mathematicians are developing the theory that is being used to push the AI development forwards at each step, as you can see if you check arxiv occasionally
>>17073972It's funny to read your seething. AI industry might have taken the pleasure of mathematical discovery, coming up with a beautiful proof. But, you never experienced this pleasure to begin with, and you lost any possibility for it in the future, forever and ever. We have good memories, you have nothing but jealousy. Go tell mommy how you failed Analysis I to a bad professor.
>>17073442He got Duminiliated and he can't Copein
>>17073442keeeeeeek every day another mathie proves that they're only in it to feed their egos
>>17074071>>17074101lmfaoooooo holy cope
>so a week later after Buckmaster's buck was Broken we get to receive Copin's copePeak clown world
>>17074177>failed intro to analysislel>>17074968>Buckmaster's buck was BrokenIncorrect word order for what you're trying to suggest, but keep trying saar, you'll get it soon!
>>17073542It's a big club. They're all trying to become famous. If they hear someone is working on a proof, they try to avoid it and cut their own niche. They will only try working on something someone else does if they think they have a chance to scoop it.
>>17074101>how you failed Analysis I to a bad professor.Has anyone noticed that this style of coping is almost always in a mathie's post defending itself? >If you think my field is useless then you can't do it!!!1!1!11!!Got an A in it. Analysis is nothing more than masturbation lmao. Here's some real analysis for youLet epsilon > 0 be any valid critique of mathematical culture. We show there exists a delta > 0 such that for any critic within delta of a flawless logical point, a mathematician will deduce they failed Real Analysis.Given epsilon > 0 choose delta = 10^(-1000)Suppose a critic x brings an objection that is undeniably accurate, meaning:|x - Objective_Truth| < deltaWe must now evaluate the mathematician's coping mechanism f(x). By applying the Axiom of Fragile Egos, the mathematician immediately maps the critique to the critic’s college transcript:|f(x) - "You_Failed_Analysis"| ≤ Ego/Productivity ≈ ∞/0 < epsilonWe used the weaponized condescension lemma in the final steps. Thus, as the accuracy of a critique approaches perfect certainty, the mathematician's response converges uniformly to a smug ad hominem about epsilon-delta definitions. (Q.E.D. – Quite Evidently Deflective)
>>17074989>[math]You_Failed_Analysis[/math]Lol subscript error. Nice try botbrain, but there is no such thing as "Objective_Truth" so your argument crumbles as it hinges on an antecedent that does not exist in physical reality. Since your argument is a valid critique of mathematical culture it must originate from without that culture.
