Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A misalignment of AI in mathematics

mathandai.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

711–720 of 723 posts

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#711

Post by lbrito »

subroutine wrote: post #580
lbrito wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I have listened quite a few interviews with Tao and I see him being very careful about criticizing AI. He very often emphasizes the usefulness of it. This is tiresome. People should be able to flat-out criticize AI without the implied need to justify themselves all the time or "be careful". Its almost like AI has a trillion-dollar agenda backing it, to the point that you have to add a careful "its really great! But…

Based on the amount of low-effort criticisms out there, clearly nobody is afraid of "big AI". Tao seems careful about his critiques of AI because low-effort off-the-cuff criticism can lead to all sorts of future problems/hypocracy.

That's not really addressing the same issue though. I'm saying that there is a pressure to preamble any (good or weak) criticism of AI with an Apostle's Creed of AI positiveness, reassuring the reader that what follows isn't blasphemy against AI (to borrow Huang's terms).

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#713

Post by cgio »

psvv wrote: post #453
mna_ wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I would argue people getting paid to play chess was a short lived phenomenon anyway if you put it in context. The transition there is less related to the introduction of chess engines and more related to the shift in the media landscape.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#714

Post by pvab3 »

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.

that is incredibly depressing

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#715

Post by lbrito »

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 never expected this many people (on this thread) arguing semantics and what not.

You must be new here.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#716

Post by paulhebert »

phoghed wrote: post #667
paulhebert wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No need to be rude. I didn’t want to misinterpret when responding. I can see how what is happening to mathematicians is similar to what is happening to coding. I’m not sure what your broader point is? Mathematicians shouldn’t be upset? Coders should? Something else?

The point is that nearly every white collar worker is in the same boat right now, and the majority of them probably have already had much more profound impacts to their fields. So yeah, we can certainly imagine what it’s like for mathematicians.

Okay. I agree with all that you said in your latest comment.

From your first comment it seemed like you were disagreeing with me but I’m not sure how.

That’s why I asked for clarification.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#717

Post by breezybottom »

SavageNoble wrote: post #448
num42 wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

I have zero formal math training beyond my Grade 12 Pre-Calculus class. Yet with an LLM I have recently devised an architecture with incredible math potential. Math is a language like any other, and without LLM's I never would have developed the techniques that I have. AI is a tool. It speaks languages I don't (Math, Science, Code). I would love to participate in a Math competition without a hint of any formal advanc…

How could you possibly know if it has potential or not? Sounds like AI psychosis setting in.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#718

Post by roywiggins »

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #615
fph wrote: post #539

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think a better comparison is: mathematics just becomes like mining bitcoins.

I think you might have to explain that comparison a bit more to be honest. How are math proofs like bitcoins? A bitcoin has a pre-defined value, a math conjecture / proof is a bit more complicated.

If there's a machine that automatically turns electricity into proofs then mathematics becomes a different thing altogether.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#719

Post by unknownunknown7 »

_superposition_ wrote: post #647
tmhn2 wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree entirely with what you're saying, right up until your final question: > why bother grinding through all the material of climbing Mt. Everest and then attempting it if the helicopter ride is how things are done now? I think you answered this yourself earlier: > I think progress is really measured by what humans are able to do and understand People want to make this progress. Therefore people will "grind Everes…

That grind is emotional. And it's something AI will never have. The desire to solve a problem.

Citation needed. Who are you to say large enough clusters of neurons can't develo emotions?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#720

Post by ekidd »

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.

> 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.

This is only true up until a point. If I treat a mid-sized model (say, Qwen3.8 Flash Next) like a pair programmer, then yes, it accelerates my work.

But I can already see the next stage with Fable: If I give it a couple of paragraphs of spec and $50, then I can just leave the room and go wash the dishes. I learn nothing, I participate in nothing, and I bring nothing to the process. I am no longer succeeding at all. Fable's succeeding without me.

Now, in this model generation, Fable starts getting sloppy after a few thousand lines. I can still build better at scale.

But I don't expect AI to accelerate humans or improve our productivity for long. I can already see the first signs of a future where the AI doesn't need us for anything at all.

Post reply on HN