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

101–110 of 170 posts

Re: After Math

#101

Post by auggierose »

octoberfranklin wrote: post #6
traject_ wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's particularly true. The whole point of the Millennium Prize problems as the article states was not on absolute difficulty of the problems but on the high chance of a proof producing fruitful results leading to new concepts and theories. Any pursuit of capital T truth will of course aim for better and more clarifying abstractions and is not a subjective turn by any means.

What you describe is Tao's rebuttal of #2. I fully agree with him there. It's his rejection of #1 that makes me sad.

it is not his rejection, this is a guest article written by two other people

Re: After Math

#102

Post by hyperhello »

jacobolus wrote: post #16
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…

The authors of this piece are Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede. It is hosted at Terence Tao's blog, but he did not write it.

> But AI breaks that correlation, for the same reason it separates the two notions of proof. So, even genuine solutions would not satisfy us. This is not moving the goalposts but recognizing that any specific goalpost is inadequate. If mathematics is a game, it is an infinite one. This attitude is not reactionary. We reject both

It was pure Not X It’s Y for so long i naturally assumed it was AI written.

Re: After Math

#103

Post by [deleted] »

auggierose wrote: post #95
moralestapia wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would my tax dollars go to fund someone's journey on what's essentially a hobby at this point?

You funded it before with your tax dollars, and it was already a hobby at this point. Mathematicians do what they do because it is fun. Well-paid-for fun, if they were able to get tenured.

[deleted]

Re: After Math

#104

Post by justinparus »

moralestapia wrote: post #90
justinparus wrote: post #84

"It is not the destination, but the journey that matters" For now, AI will be another tool in the toolbox of mathematicians. With humans driving the conversation to help understand the world better. If/when AGI is reached maybe we won’t be in the driver seat as much. I don’t think that matters. The goal of math is to achieve greater understanding of the world, regardless if humans are driving or if an AI is.

Why would my tax dollars go to fund someone's journey on what's essentially a hobby at this point?

Previous to you tax dollars and philanthropy have funded math in various forms and you reap the benefits.

Re: After Math

#105

Post by suddenlybananas »

emerongi wrote: post #59
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’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase I’m sure he wisely kept off the Internet, and is currently in the bargaining phase - ie scrambling to change the goal posts. I wonder if he will wisely keep the depression / burnout phases also off the internet. You're making up a narrative about another person. You have no clue what's happening to him, without talking to him.

Not only that, but this blogpost wasn't written by Tao.

Re: After Math

#106

Post by GPerson »

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’m just going to say this 100 times I guess. Terence Tao has had a very consistent narrative on AI in math for a very long time, at least since 2023. He’s always described it as a surprisingly good tool and has advocated that mathematicians adopt the technology without becoming totally reliant on it. He’s also always argued that mathematics is fundamentally about human understanding. There’s no change in his messaging recently on the basic narratives.

It is not right to project one’s grief onto others and then characterize all their actions through this lens! (This post is attributed to other people and doesn’t sound like his voice by the way, which highlights the problem with doing so.) And it’s especially wrong to pose what looks like a therapy diagnosis on a stranger in public as a non-expert.

Re: After Math

#107

Post by anonymouz »

auggierose wrote: post #100
anonymouz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because knowing a proof exists is just a small part of math. It's value is rather limited to actual math, as the article explains quite eloquently and nicely.

The article is eloquent and nicely written, and it is also wrong. To say that "1. AI really did solve a problem in mathematics." is wrong, is just wrong. No matter how nice and eloquent you try to explain it afterwards.

I recommend rereading the text.

Re: After Math

#108

Post by quickthrowman »

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’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, …

There’s a byline at the top of the article that lists the authors of this blog post, neither of which are Terry Tao.

> [This is a guest post by Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.]

Re: After Math

#109

Post by mikhailfranco »

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…

The blog post was not written by Terry Tao :)

Re: After Math

#110

Post by auggierose »

anonymouz wrote: post #107
auggierose wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is eloquent and nicely written, and it is also wrong. To say that "1. AI really did solve a problem in mathematics." is wrong, is just wrong. No matter how nice and eloquent you try to explain it afterwards.

I recommend rereading the text.

It is not that nicely written.
Post reply on HN