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

After Math

terrytao.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 171 posts

Re: After Math

#61

Post by zkmon »

pdhborges wrote: post #55
zkmon wrote: post #51

It shows that the human quest has been in wrong direction since the industrial age began. Domains like math and other inter-connected or inter-dependent domains - all exist in modern times only to keep people employed outside of basic work such as farming and survival. All of these domains can be removed and humans can still continue with their lives taking care of what really is needed for their survival and sprawl.…

We also use technology to care for the people in medicine and it requires pretty advanced science and engineering. Doesn't that shred your argument?

Nope. The medical advances created the inverted pyramid of demographics in the western world, filled by old people.

Re: After Math

#62

Post by svara »

matherial wrote: post #11
stabbles wrote: post #7

Wouldn't AI make the field of mathematics more ambitious? In software development it feels that way: there are often tasks I can take on that would have been too risky in 2025, because it was unclear if they were worth it. Now you generate a prototype and can make much better judgement calls what is possible and what is worth pursuing.

It might feel that way, but I'll ask again: where's the payoff? Where's all the amazing software that everyone is now supposedly shipping 10x faster than before? If I look at the software I'm actually using day-to-day, or that my friends are using, all this stuff looks exactly the same as it did in 2021. Not a single product release from Google, Microsoft, or more scrappy companies in the past 6 months made me go "wo…

This has a clear answer in systems theory; the ability to bang out code was never the limiting factor for Google et al.; large organizations are limited by coordination costs.

It's the small teams you need to pay attention to, the organizations that really were limited by engineering capacity. These are by definition also less visible - for now.

Re: After Math

#63

Post by robotpepi »

contubernio wrote: post #47
robotpepi wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disproof of the Jacobian conjecture by example It should be noted that there was a manuscript, available online since the beginning of 2025, with a solution to the Jacobian conjecture: "Adrian Vasiu claims that the 7 page AI paper on the 3D Jacobian conjecture counterexample used notation and concepts from a draft of a paper jointly written with Alexander Borisov and Ofer Gabber, dated to January 14, 2025 and made…

Tha Jacobian conjecture is (was?) notorious for publication of false proofs. There have been many, not all by those who shouldn't have known better.

Well the author of this one obtained a grant based on the work, the proof uses the same strategy as Anthropic's and even share some notation. I'm not an expert but this doesn't seem like one of those P!=NP proofs.

Re: After Math

#64

Post by lhd1 »

matherial wrote: post #11
stabbles wrote: post #7

Wouldn't AI make the field of mathematics more ambitious? In software development it feels that way: there are often tasks I can take on that would have been too risky in 2025, because it was unclear if they were worth it. Now you generate a prototype and can make much better judgement calls what is possible and what is worth pursuing.

It might feel that way, but I'll ask again: where's the payoff? Where's all the amazing software that everyone is now supposedly shipping 10x faster than before? If I look at the software I'm actually using day-to-day, or that my friends are using, all this stuff looks exactly the same as it did in 2021. Not a single product release from Google, Microsoft, or more scrappy companies in the past 6 months made me go "wo…

>Mathematics is probably the same way. There's a short-term rush when you pull the lever, but there's less desire to get invested in what comes out.

Perhaps it will take until the next generation to come along to really embrace the new AI-assisted way of doing mathematics. The current generation has too many reservations.

Re: After Math

#65

Post by 9dev »

OroPla wrote: post #52
yazaddaruvala wrote: post #12

I think as a civilization we need to postulate a new term: “purpose death” Defined something like: temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the experience of existential dread from never achieving self-actualization in spite of the tremendous time commitment towards excellence in a now automated intelligence. I truly think because of the pace of innovation this will be a universal feeling for every hu…

> temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the experience of existential dread from never achieving self-actualization in spite of the tremendous time commitment towards excellence in a now automated intelligence > this will be a universal feeling for every human for the rest of existence As someone that has accepted a very long time ago that nihilism is the only self-consistent philosophy, I've made…

Even if you cannot derive purpose from inherent love toward yourself, you can still at least take pleasure in existing, being incredibly privileged to enjoy the greatest show there ever is. Nothing beats the beauty of nature, and being here to enjoy everything life has to offer for a while is a wonderful thing on its own, even if you don’t contribute anything to it.

Re: After Math

#66

Post by le-mark »

Perhaps the pathway to alignment involves requiring frontier-next to be capable, willing, and eager to explain the work of frontier-current to us. To do this frontier-next must at least have some thought for us at all. Even if it is only placing crumbs for us to swarm and carry into our holes.

Re: After Math

#67

Post by svara »

I'm a bit worried that this line of reasoning is assuming its conclusion, in stating that mathematics is for human understanding.

This is not something that's just true on its own; it's on us as a species to make sure that it remains that way, for the sake of our dignity.

However, this position will be extremely difficult to defend, against the economic value of not caring.

Re: After Math

#68

Post by sigmoid10 »

This kind of argument is always dangerous, because it essentially resorts to moving goalposts. "Oh, AI can now do X? Sure it is amazing, but it can't do Y yet, so we're totally safe!"

Just because humans can't process the proof or see the advancements, it doesn't mean that it will remain that way in the future or that it will not change the field. If you only define yourself by things AI can't do yet, you're about to have a rude awakening. We've gone from high school, to university math, to Euler problems all the way to Millennium problems in a time frame most people couldn't even do a PhD. If you start any math research now with a horizon beyond the next two years, I'd be terrified of the current rate of progress.

Re: After Math

#69

Post by slickytail »

le-mark wrote: post #66

Perhaps the pathway to alignment involves requiring frontier-next to be capable, willing, and eager to explain the work of frontier-current to us. To do this frontier-next must at least have some thought for us at all. Even if it is only placing crumbs for us to swarm and carry into our holes.

[dead]

Re: After Math

#70

Post by raphman »

yazaddaruvala wrote: post #12

I think as a civilization we need to postulate a new term: “purpose death” Defined something like: temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the experience of existential dread from never achieving self-actualization in spite of the tremendous time commitment towards excellence in a now automated intelligence. I truly think because of the pace of innovation this will be a universal feeling for every hu…

I don't think that "death" is the perfect word here - it typically describes a permanent state. FWIW, what you describe ("temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose") is called "Sinnkrise" in German (crisis of meaning/purpose).

(And because not everybody might know: the comment references Kübler-Ross' five stages of grief (when confronted with a tragic outlook)¹: denial → anger → bargaining → depression → acceptance)

¹) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief

Post reply on HN