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

821–830 of 838 posts

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#821

Post by eru »

3ash14 wrote: post #445
Bourget wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's worth anything: I have a PhD in (theoretical) mathematics and I entirely stand by stabbles' comment. There is a real, undeniable possibility of AI becoming better at mathematics in the same way that it became better at chess and Go, and in such a scenario, one may expect the community's response to be comparable.

Stockfish isn't owned by a club of three trillionaires. It does not cost $15 million to achieve a result in Stockfish. Stockfish does not steal research or scoop researchers. The concentration of computing resources and capital should be examined by the math community.

The trailing edge of AI is catching up fast. There's plenty of open source (and even more open weight) AI models and they are getting better and better.

If that's your only objection: in a few years you can prove Rieman's hypothesis on your smartphone, no need for any trillionaires to give you permission. Does that make any change to your argument, or did it not actually matter?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#822

Post by eru »

coderenegade wrote: post #624
3ash14 wrote: post #445

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Stockfish isn't owned by a club of three trillionaires. It does not cost $15 million to achieve a result in Stockfish. Stockfish does not steal research or scoop researchers. The concentration of computing resources and capital should be examined by the math community.

This is the real problem. We're looking at a future where those who control AI have an insurmountable advantage in everything. They can control the amount of intelligence the masses have access to -- for their own safety, of course -- and they will never, ever be able to close the gap.

There's lots of competition in AI. Where do you see the 'insurmountable advantage in everything'?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#823

Post by eru »

coderenegade wrote: post #810
tomrod wrote: post #746

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say they do. What then? Will people buy from them? What if we decide not to?

At a certain point, you don't have a choice. Before China got into the game, the only way to avoid giving Luxotica money if you wanted a pair of glasses was to essentially not buy glasses. This is the same for many industries -- consolidation behind the scenes.

Huh? I've been able to buy reasonably priced glasses for all my life. (However, I've never lived in the US nor China.)

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#824

Post by 0xpgm »

sim04ful wrote: post #220
yzydserd wrote: post #6

> solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. This is the effect of AI on most intellectual disciplines, and it’s a real worry.

Playing a devil's advocate. Why do we need understanding ? To take an example i would say ~99% of the population do not understand how combustion engines or how semiconductors work, what say another 1% ? Is the fear post-apocalyptic in nature ? We need some human priesthood to carry on tradition ? why ? Let's assume in the next decade GPT-7 PRO Ultra is cheaply ubiquitous, inspectable, reproducible, transferable, rea…

Whole civilizations fell when people forgot how to do important things

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#825

Post by eru »

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…

[dead]

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#826

Post by eru »

somenameforme wrote: post #776
psvv wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

When there's a billion people playing something, money will never be an issue for those at the top. Even things like chess.com was able to sponsor a tournament with a million dollar prize pool. Also I'd argue that chess's utility is ultimately the same as pure math, particularly in esoteric fields. These things are highly unlikely to ever lead to any sort of real world breakthrough or application. The main benefit is…

> Though I think even that's probably too socially utilitarian. I think ultimately the 'real' drive is the same in both fields - it's fun and personally rewarding.

That's fine, and no amount of machine excellence will keep you from enjoying recreational chess or recreational math.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#827

Post by marsten »

Math is likely moving into a big science era, much like experimental particle physics and astronomy did before it.

Once AI mines the easy unsolved problems, it will take large token budgets to make meaningful advances. That will need to be funded and planned at a societal level, like the great facilities of the other big sciences.

Mathematics will become more like an observational science, with some mathematicians specialized in interpreting the results that come out of the big AIs.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#828

Post by eru »

fidotron wrote: post #549
mb7733 wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs. What is the purpose of that? Its like art being produced for AI to consume. What is gained from that?

Well if it proves useless presumably they'd stop doing it. But if AI is to recursively self improve understanding and evolving its own foundations, which are clearly mathematical, is essential. There is no need for humans to grasp what is going on in that loop.

Math also has applications, and they don't rely on human mathematicians doing the math.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#829

Post by JoshTriplett »

eru wrote: post #819
JoshTriplett wrote: post #785

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What you seem to suggest is that AI will be able to completely (or at least in a great part) replace mathematicians. There is no bound on the amibitions of AI. AI is set to replace anything done by people , and there won't be any room left for people. There isn't any task done by humans that AI won't be better at. This is not a tenable outcome. We should never have built machines with agency , rather than optimizat…

You say it like it's a bad thing.

Replacing people leaves no room for people.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#830

Post by intended »

myng111 wrote: post #738
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…

This really resonates with me. I'm early in my PhD and I'm researching a niche form of data compression and IC design. I don't use any AI at all in my research, I do it the super old fashioned way, I read papers cover to cover and sections of textbooks to familiarise myself with the field. I genuinely enjoy doing this, it's really fun to think critically about what an author wrote or how a particular approach works.…

I can say with some certainty that you should most definitely bother.

The greatest predictor of AI productivity I have seen has been operator maturity.

AI usage tends to atrophy skills, unless used in a very mature and self aware manner.

All of which depend entirely on the operator having developed a mature theory of mind, and experience with living and working within their own head.

Post reply on HN