wouldn't it be dystopian secrecy cause a flock camera is equally capable of watching the mathematicians as it is the public citizens.

Maybe mathematicians are smart enough to never ever buy such piece of shit on higher principle, regardless of their actual fiasco?

Regardless of the true cost, it seems that professional mathematicians now need to wary about what they put into a LLM and think hard about how to disclose and publish a result.

This is all but guaranteed now.

Mathematicians/Scientists/Researchers need to stop sharing freely with "AI Companies" and have explicit clauses in place in their publications about not using their research without their explicit consent.

There should be a clear legal distinction between using research data for AI model-training vs. another researcher using it.

Come up with a legal framework, establish procedures for sharing and using others work and have a single scientific body in charge of enforcing it.

Just putting a clause in a publication won't prevent it from being used as training data. Information wants to be free.

The frontier LLM vendors do sell enterprise licenses which contractually guarantee that your prompts won't be used for training. (Maybe they'll secretly violate the agreement but in principle it's legally enforceable.) Scholars and universities who care about credit and attribution will either have to purchase those licenses or run their own private open-weight LLM instances.

I don't like this and I wish it weren't true, but I think the period of "information wants to be free" is coming to an end, it was a relic of a bygone era. Increasingly, making your information free means you're the sucker who is doing free labor for AI companies, or worse, you're helping your competitors. Paywalls, login walls, and rate-limits are going up everywhere: there's the GitLab news on the home page right now, and sites like Twitter, Reddit etc. which used to be publicly-readable are now gated (and Xitter is using the legal system to shut down any bypasses).

I hate this but I don't think there's any going back now that LLMs exist.

Even the $20 tier of ChatGPT has privacy settings that forbid using the user's data to be used for training. The question is, whether this setting is respected.

Simple: if you don't publish your work, we don't fund you. Why is this even a question?

This is about cooperation before publishing results. And they will keep everything medieval secret, else some big company steals it and claims it their own.

So then the solution is to publish more often (e.g. on a public blog) even if your ideas are not fully developed in order to establish priority and show you are doing something.

Analogously with software development, it's always been good practice to write things down, but since the start of this year it's become dramatically more important for everyday work.

anyone else already experiencing this in a corporate environment? I know I am. Its not just between teams either, its within them.

The age of a Warhammer 40k Tech Priest is upon us! Praise to the Machine God.

Just, without the aliens, space travel, or mech-suits.

Got half the other downsides though!

Would you expand on your experiences? Can you not share ideas now? What if you enhance them with an LLM before sharing them?

Stop treating AI companies and their software as somehow unconstrained, above-the-law actors. It's delusional that anyone buys that. Regulate them appropriately.

At the same time, mathematicians should be using sophisticated, specialized LLM tools in much more sophisticated ways than lay people. There should be no way lay people can compete. There are new tools to master and if you use your slide rule, you won't keep up. It's a chance for mathematics productivity to boom.

Like we can prevent the rest of our society from devolving into the Medieval Era of secrecy: by treating individuals with respect and dignity and not as the ore from which resources can be profitably extracted.

Any solutions to this issue that aren't unrealistic socialist pipe dreams?