A misalignment of AI in mathematics • Hacker News Board

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#281

Post by david-gpu » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC

pred_ wrote: post #210

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…

Are you aware that Tao is among the largest proponents of using AI in mathematics? The usage itself is not the point here.

Tao doesn't go as far as Baudelaire, but there are some similarities. In particular, Tao has criticized that AI is not being used to create new interesting conjectures, and that the rush to prove old conjectures is not giving human mathematicians enough time to carefully analyze and understand the proofs and the methods used in those proofs.

My answer to both is the same: nothing stops mathematicians from doing both of those things, with or without the help of AI. And we all understand that it will take time to do that. But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#282

Post by dgellow » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC

jeremysalwen wrote: post #20

To me it doesn't seem like what AI has destroyed is the ability for mathematicians to develop understanding and share it with each other, but rather it's destroyed the yardstick (solving open problems) that has traditionally been used to measure how much they have contributed to that understanding. I do see how this is a problem in terms of assigning credit, but I think the cat is already out of the bag in terms of t…

> but I think the cat is already out of the bag in terms of these models being capable.

When there's a discussion about doing something against the damage of the AI industry: "whoopsy, sorry, another cat escape, nothing can be done".

When there's a concrete mention of an actual solution to avoid more cats escaping: "that won't happen, and even if it did, the damage is already done, and in fact it’s not that bad you all just have to go with the future we decided for you."

So the bag is wide open, more cats will escape, and nothing can be done about any of it. not about the ones that got out, and not about the ones still inside. Sounds more like a preemptive excuse for inaction, cosplayed as pragmatism

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#283

Post by 318274 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:00 PM UTC

num42 wrote: post #228

tmhn2 wrote: post #200

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 skeptici…

>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. Dr. Tao said the same thing. Somehow, this letter came through. He wants to conduct Math competitions where participants who don’t have formal credentials can contribute to mathematical research through AI. Title: Terence Tao - SAIR Competitions and the…

So he got exuberant because he is funded by SAIR and the "AI for math" fund.

And embarrassingly they used him for a "coal miners should learn math" moment that just benefits the AI industry.

He has severely reversed course in the past week. Without concrete propositions it remains to be seen how much of the new resistance is for show.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#284

Post by CuriouslyC » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:00 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.

Lots of people still make bad music that other people still manage to enjoy (a lot of it has gone multi-platinum!) even though they're not Mozart or Bach.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#285

Post by buellerbueller » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

mosura wrote: post #140

bananaflag wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans are the one single intelligence that we know which has not been created by another one.

An impressively strong assertion, even by HN Friday standards.

i count at least two assertions

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#286

Post by lelanthran » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

9question1 wrote: post #221

jrflo wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it really attacks human understanding though. You can still read and understand an AI written proof. If another person comes up with a solution to a problem, you can read their methods and understand it. It doesn't matter if a human came up with that or not. It's really only attacking the "generating new ideas" part.

That's precisely the problem though. You cannot still read and understand an AI written proof at the current skill level of the AI being applied, because they're orders of magnitude longer than human written proofs even when they don't need to be, and spend most of that length on the parts that aren't important. This has been really thoroughly documented by expert mathematicians who are engaging with AI in public lik…

> You cannot still read and understand an AI written proof at the current skill level of the AI being applied, because they're orders of magnitude longer than human written proofs even when they don't need to be, and spend most of that length on the parts that aren't important.

Just like how they write software, then :-)

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#287

Post by daveguy » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

ThalesX wrote: post #245

boron1006 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nothing is stopping these folks from continuing to study the problems My understanding is they are? And literally everything in this world is based around incentives. If you say “well you can continue to work on understanding, but your kids are going to starve” that’s not nothing.

It boggles my mind. Why cure cancer? The cancer researchers will be out of a job and their kids are going to starve!

The point isn't what happens after something is solved. Where is the motivation for humans to study/find a potential solution if your kids are going to starve while you do it? These things can brute force problems that have a clearly and feasibly searchable answer, but they can't make creative leaps. It will be a severe dark ages for mathematics if humans stop contributing.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#288

Post by 318274 » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:01 PM UTC

mkprc wrote: post #212

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…

Baader–Meinhof phenomenon: Baudelaire popped up in this article two days ago. https://www.noemamag.com/a-new-kind-of-creative-poverty/

The AI people sing from the same sheet.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#289

Post by buellerbueller » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:02 PM UTC

deaton wrote: post #226

sim04ful wrote: post #164

"We are witnessing a general threat to intellectual work, with misalignment between the outcome of the use of AI and its initial purpose" Suppose we eventually have GPT-7-class models running practically on $100 devices, with their activity transparent, inspectable, and reproducible. At that point, what exactly is left for us to fear from this threat?

The fact that those models are encroaching on things only human minds could do. Personally, as a human, I want there to be things humans are the best at, and intellectual things were the final thing that machines hadn't beaten us at.

100% on board with this take.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#290

Post by mosura » Fri, Sep 11, 2026, 8:02 PM UTC

omnicognate wrote: post #263

mosura wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What the mathematicians are saying is stop pouring resources that most mathematicians can only dream of accessing into projects that are actively damaging to their field. They face a massive challenge of figuring out how maths can evolve in the face of this new technology, and this is not helping. Is it reasonable for any field to make such demands? If this were doctors objecting to AI becoming good at medical prac…

It's not a simple matter of "becoming good at", and yes, I could very well have similar concerns, depending on how it impacts the field. The statement itself mentions that such concerns exist in many other fields. I doubt OpenAI will take such a combative stance and accuse these mathematicians of "demanding" things, as you do. As I said, the purpose of this is marketing and the statement simultaneously undermines the…

So let’s say OpenAI cure cancer and put every cancer researcher out of work depriving them of intellectual satisfaction, this would also be a problem? It would certainly impact the field.

The fact is these fields are supported by society because of the benefits to everyone else. Once the same results can be achieved in a cheaper and faster way that is what will be done. We should mourn this in the same way we do buggy whip manufacturers. Again people still ride horses.