A misalignment of AI in mathematics • Hacker News Board

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#191

Post by piker » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:26 PM UTC

matherial wrote: post #179

david-gpu wrote: post #141

Tao's critique of AI in the field of mathematics reminds me of what French art critic Charles Baudelaire said in the 19th century about photography [0]. Baudelaire argued that photography became a haven for failed painters, the sorts of hacks that could not finish proper training. Photography, as a mechanical rendering of the world, could only record what already existed; it couldn't transform reality the way a paint…

I'm really tired of these arguments (this and "it's just like calculators"). Photography decimated other forms of visual art, so the concern wasn't wrong. But AI threatens the entirety of human intellectual endeavors . I can make do without oil paintings in my home. I'm not sure I want to live in a future where we make do without brains.

Had me until the last word. Cameras did take away oil paintings, but not eyes.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#192

Post by 12qqtt » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:26 PM UTC

david-gpu wrote: post #141

Tao's critique of AI in the field of mathematics reminds me of what French art critic Charles Baudelaire said in the 19th century about photography [0]. Baudelaire argued that photography became a haven for failed painters, the sorts of hacks that could not finish proper training. Photography, as a mechanical rendering of the world, could only record what already existed; it couldn't transform reality the way a paint…

No, there are no parallels. It is just cliche propaganda used by AI boosters.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#193

Post by beambot » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

matherial wrote: post #179

david-gpu wrote: post #141

Tao's critique of AI in the field of mathematics reminds me of what French art critic Charles Baudelaire said in the 19th century about photography [0]. Baudelaire argued that photography became a haven for failed painters, the sorts of hacks that could not finish proper training. Photography, as a mechanical rendering of the world, could only record what already existed; it couldn't transform reality the way a paint…

I'm really tired of these arguments (this and "it's just like calculators"). Photography decimated other forms of visual art, so the concern wasn't wrong. But AI threatens the entirety of human intellectual endeavors . I can make do without oil paintings in my home. I'm not sure I want to live in a future where we make do without brains.

Humans still have brains (and thus human intellect) even in the presence of AI... Even today, people make varying use of their brains.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#194

Post by throwaway1921 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

At some point someone is going to need to answer for "what happens when all intellect is hoarded by one or two companies?" It's pretty clear that these AI labs are basically stealing everyone's alpha.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#195

Post by jokers132 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:27 PM UTC

Strange they are rallying against something their fellow mathematicians had a hand in creating.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#196

Post by nadermx » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:28 PM UTC

Back in the day you could think of a cool idea. I don't know maybe a plane that could fly without drag. To even see if this was feasable you had to understand physics, engineering, and then from there you had to have a math person see if it was actually possible.

Now, I can ask ChatGPT about this and get back a proof that shows "a passive airframe cannot sustain zero-drag motion through still, viscous air"

So, I think if anything now, Maths has changed for the better. More ideas can be proven false or true from a get go instead of wasting so much to see if its even feasible to find out it isn't.

Progress if anything is about to leap frog anything we have ever known.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#197

Post by deaton » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:29 PM UTC

trillobyte wrote: post #100

OpenAI: "Our mission is to ensure that artificial general intelligence benefits all of humanity." - Except the mathematicians who we'll scoop and cause existential dread among their entire field. - Except the software developers. They'll need to become plumbers or live on UBI. - Except the people in countries that can't afford the cost of AI tokens to keep up with the rest of the world. Just keep picking off groups o…

They're building a utopia that nobody will live in.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#198

Post by 12qqtt » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:29 PM UTC

linhvn wrote: post #122

And I am outraged by their dinosaur mindset and the gatekeeping mentality that force every student to follow their same archaic system that no longer makes sense 20 years ago, let alone now.

What do you suggest? Giving money to the aspiring intelligence gatekeepers and IP thieves with trillion dollar valuations?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#199

Post by keybored » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:29 PM UTC

david-gpu wrote: post #141

Tao's critique of AI in the field of mathematics reminds me of what French art critic Charles Baudelaire said in the 19th century about photography [0]. Baudelaire argued that photography became a haven for failed painters, the sorts of hacks that could not finish proper training. Photography, as a mechanical rendering of the world, could only record what already existed; it couldn't transform reality the way a paint…

We can’t look back with perfect hindsight because both the past and present have deeply ingrained blindspots. They don’t know what it is like to live in a world with perfect edges. We don’t know what it is like to live in a world with no edges. We can read about someone who proclaims that “something will be lost”. We will just think “but I have no need for any of that.” But we don’t even know what it is.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#200

Post by tmhn2 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 7:29 PM UTC

As a mathematician maybe I am a little more optimistic than this declaration.

I am thinking of Mochizuki's abc conjecture: He worked in relative isolation, and dumped a huge incomprehensible proof on the community (to oversimplify a bit). That's not totally unlike what might happen if AI generates a huge, incomprehensible proof of let's say RH.

Well, what is the result? In the Mochizuki case, it was a lot of skepticism, but it also generated conferences, papers, talks in the hallway, discussions with students, and so on--a flurry of exactly that kind of community process that the declaration says is the main driver of mathematics.

Ultimately we think a fatal flaw was found in Mochizuki's proof, so it didn't lead anywhere in particular. But in our hypothetical "AI lean-verified proof of RH" situation, it would presumably generate substantially more of that community activity we saw in the Mochizuki situation. And if it's correct, that community activity would be productive (expository talks, students given problems to flesh out or generalize, etc).

Maybe mathematics just becomes a little more like other fields--relying on labs with lots of money for compute, digging through a corpus of AI-generated proofs, etc.