It makes no sense to compare mathematics with chess. Chess is a sport. No one is interested in watching two machines compete. Chess doesn't have a practical impact. Etc. What you seem to suggest is that AI will be able to completely (or at least in a great part) replace mathematicians. It could be the case in the future, but no one knows right now, and more importantly: tech companies don't even think about it! they don't think on the externalities.
replyDoes mathematics still have a practical impact without humans in the loop? I don't think there's one single answer to that question, but I think it's worth considering exactly what that impact may be.
replyTech companies are as much the topic of this post as AI, I think that's the immediacy.
To a significant extent, the pursuit of mathematics research is a pursuit of human understanding of mathematics, without knowing where it might lead, or whether it might lead anywhere at all. I don't see how the motivation for that goes away on its own, but the institution supporting it is certainly threatened by the potential loss of grant money and graduate student applications.
reply> No one is interested in watching two machines compete
replyI’ve watched quite a lot of YouTube videos where two machines compete, so you may not be completely right here
https://tcec-chess.com/
replyTop chess engine championship is pretty fun to watch.
Stockfish isn't owned by a club of three trillionaires. It does not cost $15 million to achieve a result in Stockfish.
replyStockfish does not steal research or scoop researchers.
The concentration of computing resources and capital should be examined by the math community.
This is the real problem. We're looking at a future where those who control AI have an insurmountable advantage in everything. They can control the amount of intelligence the masses have access to -- for their own safety, of course -- and they will never, ever be able to close the gap.
replySay they do. What then? Will people buy from them? What if we decide not to?
reply