Counterpoint to AI-credit debate: builders of AI that can answer hard prompts deserve credit
_aidan_clark_ · x · 2026-09-12
Responding to Pérez-Marco's warning that publishing results you don't understand earns zero credit, Aidan Clark argues button pushers and AI companies should be distinguished: someone prompting ChatGPT to "solve the Riemann hypothesis" and getting a correct answer deserves 0 credit, but someone building AI capable of answering that prompt probably should get credit — even if neither understands it.
More from AGI Musings
- AI safety researchers respond to 'how could AI kill everyone?' with five scenario write-ups — DavidSKrueger · 2026-09-12
- tszzl pushes back on Fermi paper: 50-OOM lognormal abiogenesis prior under-justified — tszzl · 2026-09-12
- Terry Tao joins 25 Fields medallists in declaration slamming AI firms' math benchmark push — soumitrashukla9 · 2026-09-12
- MIT Tech Review roundtable on Sept 15 asks: will AI really kill us all? — nordicinst · 2026-09-12
- If the Fermi paradox is fake, does pDoom go up? AI Twitter's great filter debate — tszzl · 2026-09-12
- YC CEO Garry Tan dismisses AI doomsday talk: 'respond to what is happening now' — Kr00ney · 2026-09-12