There's an unpopular branch of mathematics which does not have infinities - finiteism.[1] The constructive version of finitism takes the position that there is no such thing as infinity, just arbitrarily large upper bounds. You can have theorems about arbitrarily large numbers, but you never get 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 ... = 2 The benefit of finitism is that it escapes undecidability. The big objection to finiteism is th…
Finitism doesn't escape anything, it just gives you the illusion of safety. Any intellectually honest thinker should accept the possibility that 10 is a nonstandardly large number.
Also, you learn to be a better chess player by... playing better players. The widespread availability of chess engines has made flawless opponents available to every player. If your goals are understanding the game, self improvement, building thinking skills-- this is the best chess has ever been. It's only if your goal is to beat every opponent you can find that chess is in a bad place.
It's not that easy. Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least). Even if you don't blunder anything, you'll still find yourself in a worse position without any clue as of what went wrong and why. Whereas when playing humans, they can usually explain their approach and when they noticed errors in your play.
I mean, I'm not a great player but I've learned a lot from working through games with stockfish using a git repo and a small script that lets me rewind to different moves and try different approaches. It may not explain its moves but if you're thinking through what's happened you can usually debug your game anyway.
> But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive. you completely misunderstood the critics. your analogy is awful. this is much closer to the industrial revolution in the uk: it brought a lot of progress, but also extreme inequality and concentration of power.
I am very specifically addressing what I have read Terrence Tao say on AI and mathematics, as that is the subject of this submission. Are we on the same page?
I don't see any meaningful analogy with your cites of Baudelaire. First of all, Baudelaire discusses art, which is very different to science. Several new forms of art have emerged, and then slowly integrated, despite the strong opinions of some. Here, Tao's letter discusses mainly practical aspect of scientific research. It is not about what a "failed mathematician" would do, or if "LLM can only record what already existed"; in fact, it ackowledges that LLM could become a central tool. If you want me to be even more precise, what they're saying (without saying it out loud) is that tech companies have too much power and are being irrespondible with it because they don't even think about the externalities.
I think the parent comment meant professional, high-level chess. The kind people get played to play, not just do for a hobby. That's absolutely on life support. I'm not sure what the equivalent would look like in the math field, but it probably involves a lot of mathematicians losing their jobs and the quality of human-produced math decreasing overall. The quality of the math in general would be fine, since in this s…
> It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound? But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs. It's kind of surprising so many mathematicians act surprised by this given this was clearly where automated proof assistants would lead. I guess they assumed they'd always be the ones guiding th…
Nothing is stopping these folks from continuing to study the problems and arriving at their own solutions so they can continue having whatever insights along the way. Well, one thing is stopping them. There will be no more adoration for their genius. If you truly do it for understanding and not the attention, carry on. AI should change nothing about your motivations.
> 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.
A lot of this would be public funding.
If AI is reducing the need for mathematicians in an area it makes sense to fund it less and fund something else that isn't solved.
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…
> 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).
This also sounds like a vector for trolling the community with complex putative proofs hiding a known flaw.
It's still an optimistic scenario. Artificial superintelligence may develop hypermathematics of a kind that never will be accesible to human mind, enhanced or not. One can't teach geometry to ants even if you put them on a Moebius strip. It would be more like Lem's novel where it completely disappears from the human horizon: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem_XIV
Which is why if humanity had empathy, it would be working on how to make smarter ants, so that they can learn more advanced geometry.
Ant Intelligence will be next big thing in machine learning after this bubble bursts
Chess is kept afloat by chess players, not by billionaires. If all the billionaire backers stopped sponsoring tournaments, people like me would still play, still pay for chess club memberships, still pay entry fees for tournaments, and still buy chess books, and so on.
I think the parent comment meant professional, high-level chess. The kind people get played to play, not just do for a hobby. That's absolutely on life support. I'm not sure what the equivalent would look like in the math field, but it probably involves a lot of mathematicians losing their jobs and the quality of human-produced math decreasing overall. The quality of the math in general would be fine, since in this s…
Mathematics is more than establishing arbitrary facts (although some look like curiosities), it's also defining what interesting research directions are and establishing common language/notation. I think that will stay relevant?
Even before AI we used to say if you write code that you only barely understand, then it will be to complicated to debug. (and/or maintain) Mochizuki was still one human and it required legions of other humans to unpack and untangle to confirm that it didn't lead to anywhere in particular. AI is now capable of constructions so complex that no human or human team can unpack. And its ability to increase that complexity…
For the interested; the saying I believe you are referencing in regards to writing code / debugging is from Brian Kernighan, specifically: Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it? (from, 'The Elements of Programming Style') It's prescient.
It’s a cute statement, but it doesn’t really match reality. Programs written by humans can generally be debugged by humans.
Could AI write programs that humans can’t understand or debug? Probably, but that’s not what Kernighan was describing.