Live data from Hacker News

A misalignment of AI in mathematics

mathandai.org

241–250 of 251 posts

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#241
It sounds similar to the more thoughtful critiques of AI in programming. Treating AI as a lines of code (LOC) generator, where actual human beings end up not engaging with the domain the software is working in, and there is then little to no understanding or care to understand the resulting code, we call "slop." The term slop is definitely pejorative, but since most software is commercial, it ends up raising questions as to how much quality and domain knowledge matter if the goal is primarily marketplace success. Then we get those thorny questions of what is software for, anyway -- do we really accept the premise that "marketplace success" is the best, and perhaps only relevant, criteria?

The declaration here, as I understand it, is taking the premise that the point of mathematics _is_ the domain knowledge, and that using "solves math problems" as a benchmark is exactly the kind of shallow, domain-eroding approach to AI that in software we label "slop."

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#242
I know it's incredibly presumptuous for me, a nobody, to say this to 25 Fields Medalists, but:

Perhaps you are misaligned.

Who decided the goal of math must be human insight?

First off, some mathematical truths might simply be far beyond our biological comprehension.

Second, for us non-mathematicians, the value of math isn't in understanding exactly why a result is true, it’s in how those results can be applied to actually improve our lives.

Isn't this why we have math in the first place? To solve our real problems? Over time it morphed into this pursuit of pure theoretical insight, probably out of necessity at the time, but is it still necessary?

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#244
post #171

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…

Academia was already crumbling for various reasons. This just hastens it. The reasons are manifold and will never be acknowledged. There will be a lot of gnashing of teeth, but it was unsustainable anyway. And historically the bloat was a very short period, a few decades only.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#245
cc my comment from reddit :

This is true of almost any field - if we have black-box technology that only the AI can understand / fix / augment / extend, then we will lose the ability for humans to learn and understand that tech.

Its similar to outsourcing manufacturing, you lose the ability to manufacture. If you don't exercise a muscle, it atrophies. If some people dont learn to write code [ or do math or write music or books ] the hard slow way, we will lose that deep skill.

If young people don't grapple with hard problems in science, math, economics, creative writing, drawing, music making .. they will not be trained, their cognitive skills will not develop with use. We will have no doctors or engineers or musicians or lawyers in a decade or two.

We don't want to become a race of fatties who never exercise, or dummies who just scroll social media feeds without exercising their minds.

This is real.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#249
Amazing. Comment upon comment, thread upon thread, failing to engage with the substance of the Field medalists' letter and instead going off on tangents about the privileges that mathematicians will lose and how they're bitter about it. There is a shocking inferiority complex on this site towards mathematicians and yet users always seem to think of themselves as smart nerds, all about science and reason and maths and whatever.

I've been disappointed by this community before but this is the first place that there is such unanimous rejection of the very ideals the uses here will claim to represent. The reaction is just... small, tiny, petty.

Re: A misalignment of AI in mathematics

#250
I get it that someones annoyed they didn't get credited, but aren't we better off having the solution than not? And surely if the AI rationalised the answer, even off the work previously done by others, then surely it can detail it's solution making it completely comprehensible to others that follow. Storm in a teacup?
Post reply on HN