The Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and mathematics https://leidendeclaration.ai/ is disappointing. The preamble is good; it clearly explains the threats that mathematics faces due to AI. The reason it is disappointing is that the only proposed solution is more transparency.

In the preamble, the authors state: « […] the consequences of large-scale investment in artificial intelligence are being widely discussed in regard to warfare, mass surveillance, political disruption, and environmental damage.». They are right: AI is currently being used to kill, surveil, and impoverish people. AI for mathematics cannot exist independently of the rest of the world; for it to function, companies need to make a profit, they need to sign deals with the military, and they need to keep destroying the planet to power their servers. To use AI is to contribute to this system. No use case of AI has provided sufficient benefits to justify the destruction it is causing.

To have as the only (possibly) constraining recommendation to « Evaluate the ethical consequences of your work, and take action accordingly» is simply not understanding the problem. AI can never be ethical in a capitalistic society. The purpose of this recommendation is to open the way to people claiming that they are using AI in an ethical way, which is impossible. How can one claim to be for open science and not condemn the use of AI, which is based on stolen work?

The few mathematical problems that will be solved by AI won’t outweigh the years of work and the brilliant minds we are losing because of it. No mathematical problem is worth the death of people, the destruction of our education system, and the destruction of our planet.

Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics

This declaration calls for action to address the challenges posed by the use of artificial intelligence within mathematics research.

Leiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and Mathematics
QP @jadkoleilat @antoinechambertloir This 💯 . My thoughts exactly when I read it this morning.

@jadkoleilat I basically agree with every single line that you wrote. However, this is not the declaration that disappoints me, but a fair part of my colleagues.

To my eyes, this declaration is not enough, I definitely prefer the conscience objection proposed by our colleagues of Toulouse Atecopol.

I also admit that it is very strange to have a declaration being signed both by people who are affirmed opponents such as Peter Scholze, and people who left academia to “solve math using AI”.

Nevertheless, I already see that it will be extremely useful to make our pro-AI colleagues acknowledge that we may stand rightfully in our refusal, that they can't take it for granted that everybody should and will use those softwares indiscriminately, and that we may explicit rules about the use of AI.

Also, I have heard that there are departments where AI-opponents feel alone. This declaration affirms that they are not.

https://atecopol.hypotheses.org/13082

Face à l’IA générative, l’objection de conscience

  Manifeste pour l’enseignement supérieur et l’éducation nationale [Vous pouvez signer ce manifeste (version pdf ici) dans ce formulaire. Un document de mise en perspective critique des discours de défense de l'IAg les plus courants est également disponible. La liste des signataires sera régulièrement mise à jour. Si vous souhaitez être tenu·e au courant des suites du…

ATelier d'ÉCOlogie POLitique
@antoinechambertloir Is there an official English translation of the French declaration you linked?
@de_Jong_Tom I don't think so, but I'll make the suggestion.