upvote
Nothing is stopping these folks from continuing to study the problems and arriving at their own solutions so they can continue having whatever insights along the way.

Well, one thing is stopping them. There will be no more adoration for their genius.

If you truly do it for understanding and not the attention, carry on. AI should change nothing about your motivations.

reply
> Nothing is stopping these folks from continuing to study the problems

My understanding is they are? And literally everything in this world is based around incentives. If you say “well you can continue to work on understanding, but your kids are going to starve” that’s not nothing.

reply
It boggles my mind. Why cure cancer? The cancer researchers will be out of a job and their kids are going to starve!
reply
Why not cure cancer and take care of the researchers’ kids?
reply
Maybe an analogy of "why not solve all medical problems at once" is closer.

We absolutely want to, of course. But you extinguish an industry and the systems of training that supply it. It's hard to know if letting it go that way is right.

reply
methinks mathematicians may have a warped perception of their own importance.
reply
The point isn't what happens after something is solved. Where is the motivation for humans to study/find a potential solution if your kids are going to starve while you do it? These things can brute force problems that have a clearly and feasibly searchable answer, but they can't make creative leaps. It will be a severe dark ages for mathematics if humans stop contributing.
reply
You have misunderstood.

I have a the cure for cancer. Simply kill the host. Does it work? Yes. Have you learned anything from it? No.

reply
A lot of this would be public funding. If AI is reducing the need for mathematicians in an area it makes sense to fund it less and fund something else that isn't solved.
reply
Your comment perfectly illustrates why most are missing the point. Many people, including you, deeply believe that most mathematicians are chasing adoration of their genius, otherwise why would anyone care about such abstract work?

People like Grigori Perelman would baffle you, a mathematician who solved the Poincaré Conjecture, refused the monetary prize, field medal and continues to live a life of total recluse.

For most mathematicians their primary drive is chasing the unknown, not for anyone’s adoration, but to pursue their desire to see what lies in the beyond.

reply
Going to the gym and using a forklift
reply
This is a good metaphor for treating the means as an end, thanks. And I agree with your parent comment that that is largely the misalignment that Terence is pointing out.
reply
There is an implicit agreement that mathematics is funded, for the most part by the public, as a way to advance the state of knowledge and propagate (even if very indirectly) what has learned for the public good.

It was never about helping individual mathematicians demonstrate that they are individually good at math. It happened to work out that way, but it wasn't the goal.

reply
Agree, my comment is rather about the fact that most work you do in school and (lower) university is not itself of interest, rather the purpose is to work out your brain. The more of your exercise you leave to the forklift, the steeper the cliff will be when you find a weight that doesn’t fit on forks. (That is, unless/until machines get good enough to completely replace people, at which point we have another few problems on hand, such as day-to-day purpose and justification of existence)
reply
I've been wondering if mathematics is going to go the way of particle physics in that it will start to take a lot of money to make advancements.
reply