A misalignment of AI in mathematics • Hacker News Board

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#681

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:41 AM UTC

gpt5 wrote: post #671

pks016 wrote: post #665

I never expected this many people (on this thread) arguing semantics and what not. I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad. I'm afraid of the ripple effect of the agenda pushed by AI companies will have. In future and even now, they say AI has significantly progressed math and scientific research in general. There is truth to this, but the narrative has done more damage…

I think that the main thing people in this thread are missing, is that it's not about math. AI progression is very likely to affect every single thing humans can do today. Mathematicians are feeling the blow this week, especially as there was wide spread denial in that math community over the capabilities of AI over the last few years, but it's the same problem everywhere.

[deleted]

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#682

Post by fraserphysics » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:42 AM UTC

nythroaway048 wrote: post #63

I was under the impression that mathematics (and science generally) had the primary goal of helping us understand our universe better than those who came before us.

I don't know how societies set "primary goals". After spending 15 years in a tenure track -- tenured position, I thought setting goals well was important.

I take pleasure in how mathematics and science help me understand the universe better than I understood it before I studied the fields. I believe that my understanding has helped me contribute to society.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#683

Post by redox99 » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:43 AM UTC

pks016 wrote: post #665

I never expected this many people (on this thread) arguing semantics and what not. I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad. I'm afraid of the ripple effect of the agenda pushed by AI companies will have. In future and even now, they say AI has significantly progressed math and scientific research in general. There is truth to this, but the narrative has done more damage…

> Many graduate students (I know) are having a crisis if any of their research worth it? If AI can (or will) do everything, what's the point of doing experiments and all? This will eventually deter a whole generation of curious minded students from research.

Those who think it's me or the machine will fail.

Those who realize how much you can accelerate your research with the help of AI will succeed.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#684

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:48 AM UTC

gpt5 wrote: post #671

pks016 wrote: post #665

I never expected this many people (on this thread) arguing semantics and what not. I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad. I'm afraid of the ripple effect of the agenda pushed by AI companies will have. In future and even now, they say AI has significantly progressed math and scientific research in general. There is truth to this, but the narrative has done more damage…

I think that the main thing people in this thread are missing, is that it's not about math. AI progression is very likely to affect every single thing humans can do today. Mathematicians are feeling the blow this week, especially as there was wide spread denial in that math community over the capabilities of AI over the last few years, but it's the same problem everywhere.

[deleted]

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#685

Post by timcobb » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:48 AM UTC

redox99 wrote: post #683

pks016 wrote: post #665

I never expected this many people (on this thread) arguing semantics and what not. I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad. I'm afraid of the ripple effect of the agenda pushed by AI companies will have. In future and even now, they say AI has significantly progressed math and scientific research in general. There is truth to this, but the narrative has done more damage…

> Many graduate students (I know) are having a crisis if any of their research worth it? If AI can (or will) do everything, what's the point of doing experiments and all? This will eventually deter a whole generation of curious minded students from research. Those who think it's me or the machine will fail. Those who realize how much you can accelerate your research with the help of AI will succeed.

What does success look like?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#686

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:51 AM UTC

ndriscoll wrote: post #679

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #655

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But it does produce value. We now have an explicit solution and even a proof. Humans can then work on clarifying why it's true. Unsurprisingly, not all that different from software, where models can generate working code just fine. The details will all be there and all correct, but the architecture is currently not ideal, so a human guiding it can greatly improve the proofs. To me this analogy points in the complet…

One of the awesome things about LLMs is they make it quick and easy to make PoCs, so yes. Proving that an approach will work before spending a bunch of deep design effort is absolutely valuable. Your exact scenario is something I've literally done: give a half-completed design to a team member and asked them to vibecode a PoC to prove the approach will work and figure out some of the details, explore scaling and fail…

It's valuable for you, the person who's going to spend a bunch of deep design effort, to make POCs. Is it valuable for someone else to drive by, dump some POCs on your lap, and then leave you to do the deep design effort while they run away to study AI?

If that person then runs around telling people that they're the real author of your project, because they generated the original POC, would you consider that an accurate assessment?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#687

Post by david-gpu » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:53 AM UTC

beepbooptheory wrote: post #673

david-gpu wrote: post #651

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion is that the field will adapt. AI will not spell doom for mathematics. On the contrary, it is the beginning of a new era. Math is having its Deep Fritz moment, just as computer science is going through the same. Some folks are struggling to adapt to this change. Tao actually sounds like he is doing alright compared to most, even if some of his arguments seem a bit weak, as I alluded to in other comments in…

Haha yes I imagine we all know your opinion is something like that! But isn't it much more fruitful and interesting to form an argument for it? If he is still in the context here: is there something about Baudelaire's critique you were discussing originally that has helped you arrive at this opinion? Do you think he is wrong? Or is he right, but providing the right kind of nuance that we need in order to cope with th…

> But isn't it much more fruitful and interesting to form an argument for it? If he is still in the context here: is there something about Baudelaire's critique you were discussing originally that has helped you arrive at this opinion?

The historical record. That's why I am drawing some lose parallels with Badulaire. Incumbents being unhappy about a disruptive technology, lashing against the early adopters, and fearing that it signifies the end of their craft, when in reality it's just a period of change and adaptation. Without the advent of photography we would not have Impressionism nor all the movements through the 20th century. Photography forced painters to reinvent themselves, and LLMs will force mathematicians to do the same.

I thought the historical examples of photography and chess engines would be enough for people to connect the dots, but apparently not.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#688

Post by jacktang » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:53 AM UTC

what if the ower of super AI is the mathematics? will they against it?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#689

Post by FridgeSeal » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:57 AM UTC

redox99 wrote: post #683

pks016 wrote: post #665

I never expected this many people (on this thread) arguing semantics and what not. I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad. I'm afraid of the ripple effect of the agenda pushed by AI companies will have. In future and even now, they say AI has significantly progressed math and scientific research in general. There is truth to this, but the narrative has done more damage…

> Many graduate students (I know) are having a crisis if any of their research worth it? If AI can (or will) do everything, what's the point of doing experiments and all? This will eventually deter a whole generation of curious minded students from research. Those who think it's me or the machine will fail. Those who realize how much you can accelerate your research with the help of AI will succeed.

I _want_ to agree, but I fear this is too close to the old “do what you love for work and you’ll never work a day”.

It didn’t lead to a lot of people having a wildly successful career, it lead to a lot of people getting burnt out, exploited, underpaid and generally disillusioned.

There will be a lucky few, who have the benefit of being given the space to work alongside. The vast majority of people will (unless we change things) simply be made to take whatever the machine outputs and call it a day.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#690

Post by LordDragonfang » Sat, Sep 12, 2026, 12:57 AM UTC

pks016 wrote: post #665

I never expected this many people (on this thread) arguing semantics and what not. I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad. I'm afraid of the ripple effect of the agenda pushed by AI companies will have. In future and even now, they say AI has significantly progressed math and scientific research in general. There is truth to this, but the narrative has done more damage…

> I know that not everyone has morality and ethics, but I didn't realize it was this bad.

This is a very disrespectful way to make a point about acting with integrity.

You should consider that maybe your views on what makes something ethical or moral are not universal -- and that coming to a discussion with the assumption that your position is the only valid one is not conducive to convincing others who disagree with you.