内容来源：https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/999167/openai-elite-mathematicians-panel

内容总结：

OpenAI近日宣布成立一个由九名顶尖数学家组成的独立顾问小组，就人工智能与数学研究的互动方式向该公司及其他AI企业提供建议。此前，OpenAI因一系列引人注目的数学成果发布方式不当而陷入声誉危机。

该小组名为“数学与人工智能顾问组”（AGMAI），成员来自斯坦福、哈佛、牛津和剑桥等知名学府，其中包括多位菲尔兹奖得主和麦克阿瑟“天才奖”获得者。小组将由位于新泽西州普林斯顿的高等研究院（IAS）主办，该研究院是全球最受推崇的数学研究中心之一，爱因斯坦、冯·诺依曼和奥本海默等人物曾在此工作。

OpenAI表示，该小组将独立运作，有权提出公司未请求的建议、公开评论其对数学领域的影响，并公开其建议内容。小组将获得OpenAI研究工作的早期访问权限，成员不领取报酬，并可自行调整成员构成。OpenAI称：“小组的价值取决于其成员能否运用自身判断并挑战我们的判断。”

然而，这一突然宣布的消息令许多数学家感到意外。研究人员向媒体表示，成立该小组是良好的第一步，但对其实际职能、影响力以及OpenAI是否会真正听取意见仍存基本疑问。此外，也有人担心如此小规模的精英团队能否代表更广泛的数学界。

小组成员马丁·海尔在其博客中回应了外界所谓“大量虚假信息”，称该小组“真正独立于OpenAI及任何其他所谓‘前沿’AI实验室”。他强调，成员未签署任何限制公开言论的协议，也未获得经济报酬。海尔表示：“我们的首要目标是尽可能代表数学界的利益。”但他也承认，该小组并非数学界的代表性样本。

也有数学家对该小组持保留态度。苏格兰赫瑞瓦特大学即将入职的数学教授弗朗切斯科·富尼耶-法西奥称自己对此“矛盾”，认为小组“感觉像一座象牙塔”。苏黎世联邦理工学院研究员西蒙·马沙多则质疑成员能否真正理解和代表更广泛数学界的关切，称“他们面临的现实与大多数数学家当前面临的现实非常不同”。

该小组面临的最大挑战可能还在后面。OpenAI在宣布顾问组时顺便透露，其尚未发布的新模型已“解决了数学各大部分中100多个长期未解问题”。小组在网站上表示，处理这一成果发布难题是其首要任务：“我们目前面临的非常具体的挑战是，就如何协调发布大量重要数学成果向OpenAI提供建议。”

此前，OpenAI在发布数学成果时被指责抢先发表研究人员成果、未能适当标注人类工作贡献，甚至存在抄袭行为，引发数学界强烈不满。伦敦帝国理工学院数学教授凯文·巴扎德质疑，OpenAI为何需要一个精英委员会来理解数学界的诉求：“需要的不是困难定理的证明，而是对我们学科的更好理解。我不太清楚是否需要一个由杰出人士组成的委员会来反复强调这一点。”

中文翻译：

在把一连串惊艳的数学成果变成一场声誉危机之后，OpenAI正在咨询人类数学家，帮助自己找出了一条不那么灾难性的前行道路。
OpenAI想请教顶尖数学家，如何避免再次搞砸
“该小组将就新近成果的评审与沟通提供建议。”
“该小组将就新近成果的评审与沟通提供建议。”
周一，该公司宣布成立一个新的独立数学家小组，负责就如何与数学研究及更广泛的数学界互动，向OpenAI及其他AI公司提供建议，包括新成果应如何呈现和发布。它的突然出现让许多数学家措手不及。研究人员对The Verge表示，这个小组是良好的第一步，但许多人表示，他们仍对这个小组究竟会做什么、能有多大影响力、OpenAI是否真会听取意见这些基本问题心存疑问，也担心如此小规模的知名研究者群体能否代表更广泛的数学界。
这个九人小组阵容豪华，研究人员对The Verge形容其成员是该领域的“明星”，分别来自斯坦福、哈佛、牛津和剑桥等机构，其中不乏多位菲尔兹奖得主和麦克阿瑟“天才奖”获得者。小组将由位于新泽西州普林斯顿的高等研究院（IAS）主办。IAS是全球最受尊崇的数学研究中心之一，也是阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦、约翰·冯·诺伊曼和J·罗伯特·奥本海默等人曾经的学术家园。
“另一个基本事实是，我们的总体目标，是尽可能好地代表数学界的利益。”
OpenAI表示，这个名为“数学与人工智能咨询小组”（AGMAI）的团体将独立运作，可以自由提出公司并未请求的建议，公开评论其对数学的影响，并公开其建议，不过公司并未详细说明这可能包括哪些内容。看起来，该小组将能提前接触OpenAI的研究，以便完成任务。OpenAI称，成员不会从OpenAI领取报酬，小组也可以自行决定调整成员构成。公司表示：“它的价值取决于其成员能否运用自己的判断并质疑我们的判断。”“该小组将就新近成果的评审与沟通提供建议：他们将帮助OpenAI评估这些成果的重要性，就如何协调发布提供建议，并就数学研究的学术和专业标准提出建议。它还将就我们的工具如何支持数学研究和学习提供建议。”
尽管处处强调独立性，这个小组究竟能有多少影响力，以及它最初为何成立，仍不清楚。瑞士苏黎世联邦理工学院的研究员西蒙·马沙多表示，整件事似乎“笼罩在神秘之中”，他还质疑这九名成员是如何选出的。该小组极为简陋的网站称，它“是在OpenAI接触部分成员、提出设立外部顾问委员会之后走到一起的”，但在与公司讨论后，数学家们决定改为发起一个独立小组，并邀请其他人加入。目前尚不清楚OpenAI最初接触了哪些成员，也不清楚其余成员是如何选出的。
在周二发表的一篇博客文章中，咨询小组成员马丁·海雷尔详细说明了该小组的起源及其背后的考虑，回应了他所称围绕其成立过程的“大量错误信息”。他写道：“很明显，AI已经对数学研究产生了深远影响，并提出了许多问题，比如思想归属是否正确、优先权、人类对思想的理解等等。”他还说，数学界若“采取硬生生的‘鸵鸟’做法，干脆无视AI实验室，并出于原则拒绝与其对话”，那毫无意义。
海雷尔虽然承认该小组是在OpenAI主动接触后成立的，但强调并非所有成员都被该公司联系过，而最终成立的组织“确实独立于OpenAI以及任何其他所谓‘前沿’AI实验室”。他说，除了“显而易见的保密要求”外，成员们并未签署任何限制其公开发言内容的协议，并补充说他们没有经济报酬，技术支持则依赖IAS。
海雷尔写道：“另一个基本事实是，我们的总体目标，是尽可能好地代表数学界的利益。”海雷尔是伦敦帝国理工学院和洛桑瑞士联邦理工学院（EPFL）的数学教授。尽管他指出，这个小组很难说是数学界的代表性样本，但他说自己“绝对确信，我们九个人都非常认真地对待这件事，并且是本着善意行事”。
无论成员是如何选出的，这个小组目前都由一批学术数学家中的精英组成。考虑到在数学前沿工作需要高度专业化的技能和知识，小组规模之小进一步引发疑问：它是否具备足够广泛的专业能力，来评估所有送到它面前的成果。
苏格兰赫瑞瓦特大学即将入职的数学教授弗朗切斯科·富尼耶-法西奥形容自己对这一小组“相当矛盾”，他说与数学家进行更多接触“只会让事情变得更好”。但他质疑，这个群体是否能充分反映那个正因OpenAI追逐数学战利品而工作和生计受到冲击的共同体。“这感觉像一座象牙塔。”他对The Verge说。
马沙多同样质疑，在AI问题上，小组成员是否充分理解、或者能否代表更广泛数学界的关切。“他们是了不起的数学家，但我不知道他们是不是我想在更政治性的问题上代表我的那类人。”他说。对于像他们这样身处精英位置的数学家，马沙多说：“我认为他们面对的现实，与大多数数学家眼下面对的现实非常不同。”
这个小组能否赢得数学家的信任，最终将决定它在遏制OpenAI近期一系列成果发布失误所引发的后果方面能有多有效，更重要的是，能否为公司接下来准备宣布的任何东西减轻冲击。海雷尔在博客中表示，成员们若“天真到相信AI实验室不会试图把我们的任何说法包装成适合他们公关机器的方式，那就太幼稚了，而他们的公关机器远比我们能想出的任何东西都强大。”
尽管如此，海雷尔主张，既然OpenAI似乎正在作出努力，尤其是在那么多人批评该公司行为和沟通糟糕之后，现在不参与反而是虚伪的。他说，小组尚未确定打算提供哪些建议，但它正在回应一个明确的问题：“事实是，AI公司近几个月来产出了一些高调的数学成果，而这些成果的发表和传播远远达不到可接受的数学实践标准，无论你如何定义这一标准。”
“我们目前面临的非常具体的挑战，是就OpenAI如何协调发布大量重要数学成果向其提供建议，他们称这些成果由其内部模型产生。”
海雷尔说，目前小组正通过与同行交谈、公开反馈表，以及在“Proofs and Prompts”上的讨论来收集意见。这个博客已成为数学家思考AI对该领域影响的重要论坛。
但这个小组最大的挑战很可能还在后头。在宣布咨询小组时，OpenAI还轻描淡写地抛出一条消息：其新的、尚未发布的模型——正是解决了纳维-斯托克斯千年奖问题的那个模型——如今已“解决了大多数数学领域中100多个长期未解问题”。该公司此前还表示，它正在逼近另一个千年奖问题。小组在其网站上表示，处理这一积压局面是首要任务：“我们目前面临的非常具体的挑战，是就OpenAI如何协调发布大量重要数学成果向其提供建议，他们称这些成果由其内部模型产生。”
在一定程度上，这项接触数学家的新努力，是在承认此前的尝试酿成了一场巨大的公关灾难。当时，公司不得不应对各种指控：抢在研究者前面发布成果、未能充分承认其模型所依赖的人类工作，甚至窃取使用其模型的人的成果。这些争议让许多数学家怀疑，这家公司是否理解——甚至是否尊重——它一头闯进的这门学科和这个群体。
过去几个月里，关于数学家想要什么已经有太多文章可写，伦敦帝国理工学院数学教授凯文·巴扎德于是纳闷，为什么OpenAI会觉得它需要这样一个精英机构来理解数学界想要什么。“问题不在于给出困难定理的证明，而在于更好地理解我们的学科。”他说，“我并不完全清楚，你是否需要一个由杰出人士组成的委员会来把这一点讲明白。”

英文来源：

After turning a string of spectacular mathematical results into a reputational crisis, OpenAI is consulting human mathematicians to help it figure out a less disastrous path forward.
OpenAI wants to consult elite mathematicians about how to not fumble again
‘The group will advise on the review and communication of emerging results.’
‘The group will advise on the review and communication of emerging results.’
On Monday, the company announced a new independent panel of mathematicians tasked with advising it and other AI companies on their interactions with mathematical research and the wider mathematics community, including how new results are presented and released. Its abrupt arrival caught many mathematicians by surprise. Researchers told The Verge the group is a good first step, but many said they were left with basic questions about what it will actually do, how much influence it will have, and whether OpenAI will actually listen to it, as well as concerns over whether such a small group of prominent researchers can represent the wider mathematical community.
The nine-member group is stacked with who researchers described to The Verge as celebrities in the field, drawn from institutions including Stanford, Harvard, Oxford, and Cambridge, with multiple Fields Medals and MacArthur “genius grants” among them. It will be hosted by Princeton, New Jersey’s Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), one of the world’s most revered centers of mathematical research and the former intellectual home of figures including Albert Einstein, John von Neumann, and J. Robert Oppenheimer.
“The other fundamental fact is that our overarching aim is to represent as well as we possibly can the interests of the mathematical community.”
OpenAI said the group, called the Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence (AGMAI), will operate independently, with the freedom to offer advice the company has not requested, publicly comment on its impact on mathematics, and make its advice public, though it did not provide details on what this may entail. It appears that the group will be granted early access to OpenAI’s research in order to fulfill its task. Members will not be paid by OpenAI and the group can change its membership as it sees fit, OpenAI said. “Its value depends on its members being able to exercise their own judgement and challenge ours,” the company said. “The group will advise on the review and communication of emerging results: they will help OpenAI assess their significance, advise on how to coordinate their dissemination, and advise on academic and professional standards of mathematical research. It will also advise on how our tools can support mathematical research and learning.”
For all the emphasis on independence, it remains unclear how much influence the group will actually have or why it was formed in the first place. Simon Machado, a researcher at ETH Zurich in Switzerland, said the whole thing seemed “shrouded in mystery” and he questioned how the nine members were selected. The group’s bare-bones website says it “came together after OpenAI approached some of its members about establishing an external advisory board,” but that, following discussions with the company, the mathematicians decided to launch an independent group instead and invite others to join. It’s not clear which members were initially approached by OpenAI or how the remaining members were selected.
In a blog post published Tuesday, advisory group member Martin Hairer elaborated on the group’s origins and the thinking behind it, responding to what he called a “torrent of misinformation” surrounding its formation. “It is obvious that AI has already had a profound impact on mathematical research and raises numerous questions of correct attribution of ideas, priority, human understanding of ideas, etc.,” he wrote, adding that there is no sense in the community “taking a hard ‘ostrich’ approach of simply ignoring the AI labs and refusing to talk to them on principle.”
While acknowledging that the group was formed in response to an approach from OpenAI, Hairer stressed that not all of its members had been contacted by the company and that the resulting organization is “genuinely independent of OpenAI and any other of the so-called ‘frontier’ AI labs.” Beyond “obvious confidentiality requirements,” he said members have not signed any restrictive agreements governing what they can say publicly, adding that they receive no financial compensation and are relying on the IAS for technical support.
“The other fundamental fact is that our overarching aim is to represent as well as we possibly can the interests of the mathematical community,” wrote Hairer, a professor of mathematics at Imperial College London and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Lausanne (EPFL). While noting that the group is hardly a representative sample of the community, he said he is “absolutely certain that all nine of us take this extremely seriously and are acting in good faith.”
However the members were selected, the group currently comprises an elite cadre of academic mathematicians. The small size raises further questions about whether the group has the breadth of expertise required to evaluate everything coming its way, given the highly specialized skills and knowledge required to operate at the frontiers of mathematics.
Francesco Fournier-Facio, an incoming mathematics professor at Heriot-Watt University in Scotland, described himself as pretty “ambivalent” about the panel, saying that greater engagement with mathematicians “can only make things better.” But he questioned whether this group fully reflects the community whose work and livelihoods are being upended by OpenAI’s quest to rack up mathematical trophies. “It feels like an ivory tower,” he told The Verge.
Machado similarly questioned whether the group’s members fully understand, or can speak to, the concerns of the broader mathematical community when it comes to AI. “They’re amazing mathematicians, but I don’t know if they are the people I want to represent me in more political questions,” he said. For mathematicians in their and similarly elite positions, Machado said, “I think that the reality they are facing is very different from the reality that most mathematicians are facing right now.”
Whether the group can earn mathematicians’ trust will ultimately determine how effective it will be at containing the fallout from OpenAI’s recent parade of missteps in announcing results and, more importantly, soften the blow for whatever the company is planning to announce next. In his blog, Hairer said members would “be very naïve to believe that the AI labs won’t try to spin whatever we say in a way that suits their PR machine, which dwarfs anything we could possibly come up with.”
Nevertheless, Hairer argued it would be hypocritical not to engage now that OpenAI appears to be making an effort, particularly after so many criticized the company’s conduct and poor communications. The group has yet to settle on the advice it intends to provide, he said, but there is a clear problem it is responding to: “It is a fact that AI companies have in recent months been producing some high profile mathematical results and that their publication and dissemination has been falling far short of acceptable mathematical practice, whichever way that is defined.”
“We are currently facing the very specific challenge of advising OpenAI on how to coordinate the release of a large number of significant results in mathematics that they report have been produced by their internal model.”
For now, Hairer said the group is gathering input through conversations with colleagues, a public feedback form, and discussion on Proofs and Prompts, a blog that has emerged as a key forum for mathematicians reckoning with AI’s impact on the field.
But the group’s biggest challenge likely lies ahead. When announcing the advisory group, OpenAI casually dropped the news that its new, unreleased model — the same that resolved the Navier-Stokes Millennium Prize problem — has now “resolved more than 100 long-standing open problems across most areas of mathematics.” It has previously said it is closing in on another Millennium Prize problem. On its website, the group said dealing with this logjam is its first priority: “We are currently facing the very specific challenge of advising OpenAI on how to coordinate the release of a large number of significant results in mathematics that they report have been produced by their internal model.”
In part, the new effort at engaging mathematicians is an acknowledgement of the monumental PR disaster its attempt was, in which the company found itself fending off accusations of scooping researchers, failing to credit the human work its models built upon, and even stealing from those using its models. Those controversies led many mathematicians to wonder if the company understood — or even respected — the discipline and community it had barreled into.
After the last few months and with so much having been written about what mathematicians want, Kevin Buzzard, a mathematics professor at Imperial College London, wondered why OpenAI felt like it needed such an elite body to understand what the community wants. “It wasn’t proofs of hard theorems, it was better understanding of our subject,” he said. “It’s not entirely clear to me that you need a committee of brilliant people to hammer the point home.”