A misalignment of AI in mathematics • Hacker News Board

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#51

Post by tossandthrow » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:51 PM UTC

On the contrary to what Tao believe, it seems like we need AI to move the needle on mathematics.

> problems in many fields of mathematics

Developing these different fields moves complexity from the field itself to the interactions of these fields.

Getting too preoccupied with the established terminology risks us a local minima.

Anf because the field overall has become so complex that we need to decompose into subfields, there will be a good chance that we will not, as individuals, have the capacity to truly see progress.

The map has become so big that we need better tools to work with it.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#52

Post by NoDodgeQuestion » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC

vatsachak wrote: post #32

kccqzy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefit is there if the machine has unlocked understanding but no human has? What incentives are there for humans to learn and gain such understanding from machines?

Because it's beautiful. Because you love math for maths sake and not some weird egotistical game

You feel lean4 proof, that you 99.999% chance not understand is beautiful?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#53

Post by greenowl » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC

alecfv26 wrote: post #16

vatsachak wrote: post #4

[flagged]

The point is human understanding. If the LLMs understand, but the humans don’t, where does that leave humanity? Building things we don’t understand is a sure path to facing consequences we can’t predict. Your comment also conveniently ignores the plagiarism aspect of it all. Who is coping here?

We've developed plenty of things that "work" and we don't understand exactly how or why they work, nor do we fully understand the potential for short term or long term consequences. For example: pharmaceuticals.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#54

Post by boredatoms » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC

johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #14

The average programmer is outraged by OpenAI's methods, too. I don't care how good Astra or any subsequent models they may release might be... I am never going back to those token reset shenanigans.

Gotta get a few sparks or an m5ultra and run local

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#55

Post by mccoyb » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:52 PM UTC

tossandthrow wrote: post #51

On the contrary to what Tao believe, it seems like we need AI to move the needle on mathematics. > problems in many fields of mathematics Developing these different fields moves complexity from the field itself to the interactions of these fields. Getting too preoccupied with the established terminology risks us a local minima. Anf because the field overall has become so complex that we need to decompose into subfiel…

Are you a working mathematician?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#56

Post by aleagory » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

gritzko wrote: post #15

There is a contradiction here, among many: 1. it is hard to justify 20 years of education at this point, 2. with no such people around, who will guide those (supposedly) supersmart machines? A. Ronacher (who builds harnesses for a living) complained today that he has no idea what Astra is doing. Imagine a bunch of slop kiddies facing an aging AI-generated codebase. Not to mention the maths.

Exactly. Whole article can be summed up as:

Intellectual side:

"Proving things without comprehending them is, they argue, a threat to intellectual work in general."

As always, economist shows its colors:

"Mathematicians’ fears resemble those that accompanied the invention of the ball-point in a world of fountain pens, or even the advent of electronic calculators. Intellectuals have often worried about so-called technological determinism . Will a new tool control humans? Will it lead to mental decay? Such fears have typically turned out to be unfounded."

Ball points vs. AI? Billions of dollars invested in AI vs ball point pens?

This article couldn't be any worse. Contradicting with their own beliefs, trying to defend AI while underestimating its capabilities and god knows how many zibillion dollars invested in it.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#57

Post by alansaber » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:53 PM UTC

dwa3592 wrote: post #42

While I agree with this and appreciate Tao and other mathematicians to take the time to do this. There are similar concerns for many many other fields aka there is a general misalignment of technology. Take Software engineering for example, I can't believe there is a class of software engineers who wake up everyday and tell themselves, "today is the day I am going to automate the rest of my job". Lets forget the hype…

I doubt taxi drivers were forced to experience an ego death to the same extent

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#58

Post by legobmw99 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:54 PM UTC

vatsachak wrote: post #32

kccqzy wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What benefit is there if the machine has unlocked understanding but no human has? What incentives are there for humans to learn and gain such understanding from machines?

Because it's beautiful. Because you love math for maths sake and not some weird egotistical game

Is "loving math for maths sake" just about knowing the answers? I think one can love math for exactly the process and understanding that a several-thousand-line uncommented Lean proof denies. If a deity rearranged the stars to spell out "The Riemann hypothesis is false" for a night, would that be intellectually sufficient?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#59

Post by oytis » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:54 PM UTC

Looks like mathematicians (like people in many other professions) have to redefine what their work means and how to define success. Hard to agree that a tool that can find a proof is detrimental by itself, rather it voids some assumptions people relied on previously

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#60

Post by piloto_ciego » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 6:54 PM UTC

kenjackson wrote: post #36

"how to make sure that, as AI changes the way work is done, we do not lose sight of what that work was meant to achieve in the first place." That sounds like an "us problem", not an AI or OpenAI/Anthropic problem.

That's how I read it too, Terry Tao, who has been a "pro-AI math guy" is going through the same emotions and confusion that us SWE folks are going through, "oh, wait... this might mean I'm not going to be special anymore!?"

I don't mean to be a dick, but I've talked about it previously. These folks are grieving. I get it, I've lived through this sort of life changing thing before, it sucks... but yeah.