upvote
> prompters who have no interest in the broader field itself once their initial target is "solved"

This applies to all fields and pursuits where AI is effective. Yes I think about this with regards to various things I’m working on.

This is just the nature of things, you need to adapt and not throw a tantrum like a child. You need to not behave like Terrance Tao who is essentially like a child in an adult’s body in terms of his behavior and lack of wisdom, and keep in mind he was a child prodigy so this isn’t a knock at all or statement about his intelligence, only his development as a man.

You can mourn, as I have for the field of programming as I knew it which I have loved since I was a child, but you need to move on.

reply
> but you need to move on

If AI can actually replicate mathematicians, sure. We don’t have evidence it can. We have evidence it can do useful stuff once promoted by human mathematicians. But if all the Terence Taos “move on,” we won’t have those in America anymore.

(The irony of ironies would be the mathematicians prematurely moving on causing American AI progress to stall in the future.)

reply
I completely reject the idea that releasing proofs is bad for the field of mathematics. Yes, it holistically changes the role for mathematicians, and they might not like where the change leaves them, but I do not think it harms the field overall.

Best I can tell the biggest complaints are really just that the future of their career is largely combing through lean and they don’t want to do that. Too bad. Adapt or get off the pot.

Mathematicians need to completely rethink the prestige paradigm. Counting proofs no longer works. That doesn’t mean there’s nowhere for them to go. Now it’s about gleaning human understanding from the lean. Maybe in the future LLMs can do that too and it’ll be all about formulating new conjectures.

reply