Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is mathematics about to enter the conservatory?

mbmccoy.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–145 of 145 posts

Re: Is mathematics about to enter the conservatory?

#141

Post by eru »

Turneyboy wrote: post #70
seba_dos1 wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> so it doesn't have to stand on its own two feet. So they don't (have to) care about listeners as much. That's great. A lot is lost when art has to cater to audiences.

Except it runs into an excess problem. As an example, Berlin - just one city - has 7 professional orchestras. They are supported by the government financially to the tune of 200 million EUR per year. There is a very real opportunity cost here and quite a bit of a wealth transfer to old people at the same time (since the audiences for classical music tend to be on the older side). You could pump a large part of those…

It's a wealth transfer to the middle class. Poor people by and large don't go to the orchestra or opera.

Of course, some poor people do enjoy these kinds of things! But if you gave them a choice between the subsidised ticket or the embedded subsidy as cash in hand, I'm sure most poor people would take the cash.

> You could pump a large part of those resources into supporting other kinds of music and arguably the outcome would be more interesting.

Or give the money to poor people, or leave the money with tax payers, etc.

Re: Is mathematics about to enter the conservatory?

#142

Post by cco »

lanstin wrote: post #127
jimmydddd wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think classical and symphonic music are helped in the US by school music programs. It's the best way to have 100 kids practice and perform for a concert. Breaking them into 25 jazz quartets is a lot more complicated.

Marching band.

Yup, big group when it's warmish, marching band. Big group when it's cold, symphonic band.

Re: Is mathematics about to enter the conservatory?

#144

Post by Mr_Minderbinder »

chr15m wrote: post #139
stabbles wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody wants to watch robots play chess against each other - we watch human chess even though bots are better Many humans have studied robots play chess and learned from them. For example the concept of a "thorn pawn" was popularized after Leela played it with great success. > Nobody needs math that has not been verified by humans. There already are proofs that are understood by a handful of humans; without underst…

> Many humans have studied robots play chess and learned from them. Yes, robot chess is very useful for chess players. It's a great technology. People don't want to watch robot chess. They want to watch humans, even those who used AI to train. The human part of chess is what matters. > There already are proofs that are understood by a handful of humans Yes, exactly.

> People don't want to watch robot chess.

I do and I have for a number of years.

Most people prefer to watch human chess but there are also those who watch computer chess with the same level of enthusiasm:

https://tcec-chess.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TCEC

Re: Is mathematics about to enter the conservatory?

#145

Post by busyant »

nxpnsv wrote: post #121
busyant wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And without mathematicians to ask the right questions Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting? > and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue? Here, I think I agree. At some level, there has to be a human in the process that must understand / interpret the results. I gotta say, however, that I'm not certain about my agreem…

> Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting? But why would they ask the right questions without prompting? The LLMs have no intrinsic goal to research math problems, it would just be very costly to run queries without a reason to run them... arguably a human in that loop would be a mathematician, but then we do need them after all.

> But why would they ask the right questions without prompting?

What if the models are good enough (maybe even now?) so that all you have to say is "come up with a list of interesting problems overlooked by humans in . Then work on those proofs."

I don't think that's so far fetched. Especially given the news today about NS.

Post reply on HN