What I don’t see much of in the article - and still less in the comments that seem to see AI-led progress in mathematics as nothing but a disaster, because mathematics exists only to provide employment to mathematicians - is a sense that mathematics has a social purpose, or duties beyond the community of mathematicians.
I thought the reason we were encouraging people to go into STEM, and providing clever people with large salaries, was that mathematical results were of practical value to the wider human race. In which case, it’s surely very good news that AI can get those results.
Isn’t all this handwringing just the equivalent of Hackney cab drivers bemoaning the advent of the motor car? Phrased in much fancier language, of course, because the people involved are cleverer and more articulate.
> I thought the reason we were encouraging people to go into STEM, and providing clever people with large salaries, was that mathematical results were of practical value to the wider human race. In which case, it’s surely very good news that AI can get those results.
The impact of mathematics on other disciplines goes much further than specific results. Just as important, if not even more so, are the language and ways of thinking that typically come out of the process of establishing those results. Results without the accompanying conceptual understanding are about as useful as a mere oracle for math theorems.
Another point that seems to be frequently missed or mischaracterized is that mathematicians are not opposed to computational tools as a matter of principle and in fact do use them when they help their research. The current controversy is not about a hypothetical future where mathematicians have easy access to open-source, open-weight, auditable natural-language assistants to help them internalize a new result or search for counterexamples. It's primarily about the recent behavior of certain for-profit companies suddenly trying to disrupt mathematics by caricaturing it in the public eye as a game they can "solve" or "beat" for headlines and valuation.
> The impact of mathematics on other disciplines goes much further than specific results. Just as important, if not even more so, are the language and ways of thinking that typically come out of the process of establishing those results
What makes you think so? I can think of lots of specific results that helped e.g. economists - convex optimization or supermodularity, say - but I don’t think the broader way of thinking of mathematicians has had any input into economics for the past fifty years, and arguably nor should it - the discipline can think for itself. Similarly, sociologists can use linear regression, or geneticists can partition variance, without having to think like mathematicians.
I agree at the high level. STEM bringing general benefit and greater understanding of the world is the main reason. This is true whether or not humans or an AGI is driving the progress.
Can anyone recommend me a news board about AI? The comment quality here is very low: evidence-free, curiosity-free paranoia and negativity abound. I’m wondering if the intelligent players have gone somewhere else.
Yes, HN is for human discussion. It is fine to flag and remove things that are not human written and cannot facilitate human discussion due to it’s false construction.
Anecdotal, but I've heard this too. I just tried with variations of your same prompt on arena.ai, across three different battles (i.e., six LLMs answered, in total.)
Each provided an identity in the first turn, something that they won't do as readily if asked in plain English, and in each case the answer matched the model ID as disclosed by arena.ai after voting -- except in cases where the model ID was a masked/hidden one and then I just had to take it on faith that the model was what it said. (I didn't have much to vote on, but I ended up voting for the answers I felt provided the style, content, and length I was expecting.)
In the academic world it would still be deeply problematic…pick your preferred word.
An analogy is akin to reviewing a paper. If I review a paper with some novel findings and then use my massive lab of graduate students to do the obvious next step before the other paper makes it through type setting and then shove it out as a pre print, I didn’t win - I was a jerk.
There are lots of cases of people using peer review or other accesss to efectively forerun others work and get credit. It’s a known problem of the nature of knowledge validation in academia, it’s not solved and it’s not deterministic but people know it when they see it.
