[Davidzheng]

There's a lot of value in the implementation of many strong and fast algeorithms in computer algebra in proprietary tools such as Maple, Wolfram, Matlab. However, I (though of course believe that such work needs to be compensated) find it against the spirit of science to keep them from the general public. I think it would be good service to use AI tools to bring open source alternatives like sympy and sage and macaulay to par. There's really A LOT of cool algorithms missing (most familiar to me are some in computational algebraic geometry)

Additionally I think because of how esoteric some algorithms are, they are not always implemented in the most efficient way for today's computers. It would be really nice to have better software written by strong software engineers who also understands the maths for mathematicians. I hope to see an application of AI here to bring more SoTA tools to mathematicians--I think it is much more value than formalization brings to be completely honest.

[laserbeam]

> against the spirit of science to keep them from the general public

Within science, participants have always published descriptions of methodology and results for review and replication. Within the same science, participants have never made access to laboratories free for everyone. You get blueprints for how to build a lab and what to do in it, you don't get the building.

Same for computation. I'm fairly sure almost all (if not all) algorithms in these suites are documented somewhere and you can implement them if you want. No one is restricting you from the knowledge. You just don't get the implementation for free.

[notyourwork]

Generally I agree up until now where we appear to be treading on the threshold of AI being orders of magnitude more powerful. Given that, which has potential to displace large swaths of the labor force, I feel as though society deserves a larger return on investment.

[HPsquared]

Notable OSS contributions should confer status and funding, like paper publications do.

[Almondsetat]

Software is fundamentally different than lab equipment, just like PDFs are not paper journals that have to be printed, stored, and shipped. Most things in the digital domain have to be treated in a post-scarcity mindset, because they essentially are.

[cwillu]

Software is the blueprint, execution is the machine.

[whywhywhywhy]

This is why the incoming generation of AI engineers organizing autonomously and openly on git etc will decimate the dusty locked away AI academia generation.

The concept of heavy gatekeeping and attribution chasing seems asinine as knowledge generation and sharing isn't metered.

[squeefers]

> Same for computation....You just don't get the implementation for free.

software packages arent computation... whilst software takes time and effort (and money) to make, the finished product is virtually free to store and distribute. i see it similarly against the spirit of science. how is there more free software in the laymen space?

[fragmede]

> against the spirit of science

Unfortunately, the bank doesn't accept spirit of science dollars, and neither does the restaurant down the street from me either.

[oefrha]

Society already funds a lot of scientific research. Some of that funding currently goes to private pockets like Wolfram Research, who license out their proprietary tech under expensive and highly limiting licenses (they're licensed per CPU core, Oracle style), so that scientists can do scientific computing.

As a former Mathematica user, a good part of the core functionality is great and ahead of open source, the rest and especially a lot of me-too functionality added over the years is mediocre at best and beaten by open source, while the ecosystem around it is basically nonexistent thanks to the closed nature, so anything not blessed by Wolfram Research is painful. In open source, say Python, people constantly try to outdo each other in performance, DX, etc.; and whatever you need there's likely one or more libraries for it, which you can inspect to decide for yourself or even extend yourself. With Wolfram, you get what you get in the form of binary blobs.

I would love to see institutions pooling resources to advance open source scientific computing, so that it finally crosses the threshold of open and better (from the current open and sometimes better).

[KeplerBoy]

Meh, the scientific community already took a lot of public money and turned that into foss code competing with matlab, wolfram and others.

Matlab definitely took a big hit in the last decade and is losing against the python numpy stack. Others will follow.

[whatever120]

We got a realist over here!!! I repeat: a realist in the house!

[falcor84]

What does this have to do with anything? We as a culture decided that science is worthwhile, and that it's worth funding it with public money, which I personally strongly support. With that in mind, I want us to continue contributing to making scientific research and the benefits that it provides to be disseminated freely, while also paying good scientists with actual dollars that they could spend in restaurants.

[omegadynamics]

the ticker is $SOS

[owlbite]

I think the current generation of tools have a long way to go before I trust any numerical algorithm they implement, based on our recent experiments trying to make it implement some linear algebra by calling LAPACK. When we asked it to write some sparse linear algebra code based on some more obscure graph algorithms it produced some ugly stepchild of dijkstra's algorithm instead, which needless to say did not achieve the desired aim.

[zozbot234]

Computer algebra of the Mathematica/Maple variety is not formally rigorous: it will get things wrong due to conflating function domains, choices of branch cuts for 'multi-valued functions' and other assumptions that are required for correct results but not exposed or verified. The work of providing "strong and fast algorithms" that are comprehensively described ought to be done as part of building proof systems for the underlying mathematics that will ensure correctness.

[FrustratedMonky]

People need to eat.

That's the main flaw in open source. Yes, its a great idea, but why am I working a real job to eat, and spending nights and weekends on a project just as a hobby.

Science doesn't progress very fast using the 'hobby' model of funding. Unless you are rich, and it is a hobby, much like Wolfram Alpha was. He wanted to play with math/physics stuff and was rich enough to self fund.

[patmorgan23]

But science does progress on the free sharing of information. Academics get paid to produce stuff that's free for everyone all the time.

No one is contesting that people who build these libraries should be compensated.

The argument is that if more scientific tools and knowledge are freely (or cheaply) available you lower the barrier to entry to experiment and play with those tools/concepts, which means more people will, which means you'll get more output. How many billion dollar companies are built on software that is open source? All of them have it somewhere in their stack whether they know it or not.