The hell is that reply? If we're obsoleting human mathematicians, which have fundamentally been the same thing brains-wise since forever, why shouldn't an AI system be able to replace a 1870s mathematician in the same way you are proposing it replace a 2020s mathematician?
reply>which have fundamentally been the same thing brains-wise since forever
replyand you don't see any issue here? When it takes people 2 years to understand a proof it means that the old ways are done, they hit cul-de-sac. Like in many situations, it is the highest point as well as it is a crisis at the same time.
>why shouldn't an AI system be able to replace a 1870s mathematician
my point isn't that whether it would be able to replace - i think it would. My point is that it doesn't matter. The tool is needed for the 2020s math with those proofs taking 2 years, not for the 1870s math with proofs fitting a several pages letter.
That is math of 1870s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cefn-coed-y-cymmer#/media/File... and that is what we need in 2020 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huajiang_Canyon_Bridge#/media/...
I am not debating IA's capabilities at coming up with proofs, I'm debating whether such systems will be able to figure out new mathematical fields or not. If they can't figure out some field from what was known at the time, what guarantees are there that AI-mathematics won't just bog down at its current state? There must be some evidence that AI can come up with novel mathematics before we decide to throw academics out the window. The risk of creating a sort of mathematical dark age just based on the current situation is far too great to stop funding mathematics research.
reply