undefined

points

[-]

At the individual level any mathematicians can, but the social group of “mathematicians” will not unless drastic social changes are made, because that's not how the system works today. Drastic social changes usually take decades, and funerals, to occur, so the reasonable hypothesis is that it's not going to change fast enough.

by nickysielicki1 hours ago|

parent|

[-]

Mathematics belongs to all of us. If mathematicians get depressed about it, I don't give a hoot. Five years of guided computer-aided math could improve billions of lives or solve global warming outright through cheap clean energy.

This is a litmus test for the effective altruists in AI labs: fashion or conviction? The social pressure is to slow down and let the guild keep its norms a few more years. But what's clearly best for humanity is to push forward violently and leave them in the dust. A Fields medalist's feelings are not more important than the wellbeing of the planet.

by andriy_koval8 hours ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

Tao has enough moat (name, funding) to make shift happen and even capitalize on this.

by rbtprograms7 hours ago|

prev|

[-]

youre not wrong, but i think you are missing his base point. tao is saying that mathematics is a practice that the group collectively builds. students and new methods are built on top of what has previously been done, so its a community effort of research, experimentation, and knowledge sharing.

his core argument that is LLMs (and specifically LLMs owned and gated by corporations was my read), while able to solve problems, do not contribute to this practice of knowledge building. solving problems is just one piece, and the mathematics community ingests problems and new methods, iterates and thinks on them, and then produces new ideas, methods, etc. this is what he is defining as progress, and solving things like millenium problems are markers of this progress.