AI is here 'suddenly'.
Let them discuss this out, let them go through the emotions.
And its unclear today IF we still need anyone doing anything in 5 years or not. In theory we could also just freeze 90% of things we do and put everythig into AI as a human race and just let AI do everything in 5 years.
We are not doing this because we don't know yet if it will play out like this, we don't know how much a human still needs to understand.
And to be clear, what you see as a 'problem' is just a capitalistic issue, not a human race issue: Its absolutly fine for us as humans to persue understanding for the sake of it
Gamedevs can make better games with AI! Yet the creatives don't get into gamedev if they didn't have to spend any effort to make their art
Mathematicians can advance mathematics with AI! Yet mathematicians don't get into mathematics because they want to "advance" mathematics
Teachers can teach better with AI, writers can write better with AI.. Can they?
Can't you people understand romance and the beauty of the human endeavor
Yet the creatives don't get into gamedev if they didn't have to spend any effort to make their art
In math, the speed and innovation will increase. The bar will be raised. Those mathematicians who do not want to be part of this new world will quit and go do something else, just like how some software devs have done so since AI agents. But not all will quit.
It won't be for all mathematicians, only those willing to deal with the "recipies" of ML, and those "granted" access to such hardware because a not very common resource like classic super-computers.
Where rather than the - necessarily limited - set of predesigned outfit/equipment/face combinations each characters appearance can adjust to what happened to them. Their outfit changes with their commercial status, fights leave scars, having experienced tragedy leaves a haunted look.
Where rather than premodelled dungeons the world shapes around me to tell a story.
Gamedesign would change - and game artists would change from making 3D meshes, textures and animations to being authors of storylines and styles.
And of course those dialogs would be uploaded to the cloud and sold. Can't wait
Ain’t that the truth… I’ve been slowly realizing I care very little for development when its done by AI. My main hobby, the one thing I’ve been doing since I was 13, is now as unsatisfying as it can be. Even aiming for more complicated projects I couldn’t have done before doesn’t feel satisfying
These people are robots.
That may be true but that may not be the feature that attracts people to the field.
> As we solve lower level problems, we can unlock real world math solutions.
That is an argument often made for funding mathematics research. But again it may not be the thing that attracted people to the field.
Note I don’t share all the doom and gloom of some folks in the math community but it is a valid point that people who might otherwise have gone into the field may choose not to anymore.
Also, math research has typically focused a large amount of energy abstracting and generalizing results. Your suggestion about solving real problems usually moves in the other direction. If the powers that be with all the money decide AI can solve all the real problems that exist (rightly or wrongly) then mathematics research community will have a problem.
Isn’t that only natural? I probably would have stayed in physics and not gone into software if AI had been around 25 years ago. People gravitate to areas where their innate abilities are appreciated and can make a difference.
> The goal is to find solutions
> and to advance the field
Nobody seems to be disputing LLMs help with the former, but some are concerned that the latter is jeopardized by having aliens do our homework.
Thankfully the machine was built, I do wonder if how we're going to solve the understanding part of this, there's a lot coming out, drinking from the firehose is not something I can reconcile with my experience that a lot of good ideas need serious contemplation time to bear fruit.
To advance math you need people who could be really high earners in any other field and stuck to math mainly because they find it intrinsically motivating.
You change the calculus for motivation you potentially devastate a generation of talent who just decide to go to wallstreet or something since it seems there is no longer fun to be had in maths.
It actually _is_ about individual motivation.
AI:s are not mature enough to have any sort of institutional framework built around them.
So removing a generation of mathematicians is institutionally destructive and since the field seems to have tacit elements - you teacher and the student to discuss things in same room - this is not just about labour but continuity of capability.
I mean that's how I understand the alarm. I don't do maths so I can't argue for or against.
AI:s are amnesiacs. Even with 1M context they struggle really hard to understand architecture of complex software application.
So you can't really use them as only cognitive building blocks for complex novel systems design and engineering.
I believe the same analogue probably applies to maths.
no, its just a language. physics constrains 1+1. "one plus one equals two" is difficult to transform
If society isn't there to keep us safe, free, and happy - what's the point? Accumulating lean certificates and energy production capacity?
None of the results from October 6, as far as I know, have direct real-world applications today. We can't go build a better thing, or make a faster thing, etc. I might be missing something (I'm not an expert in any of the fields). I don't think most folks would have a problem with solving a bottleneck problem that let us flux a capacitor at 2x efficiency, or whatever.
I also think this is hard for a lot of folks who are in fields that heavily apply math to come to terms with. I do not think that programming and practicing mathematics are the same: many (most?) mathematicians are closer to a composer than a programmer: all three are making things, but there is much more emphasis on elegance and cleverness in mathematics than in programming.
But again, it's not binary, and a lot of the discussion does try to take a black-or-white view of it. It's tradeoffs all the way down.
For what it's worth, I think this quote from the article sums up my position best:
"To me, someone who chooses a worthwhile problem, obtains a proof completely using AI, understands it thoroughly, and uses it to develop interesting further questions or directions has made a substantial mathematical contribution. I would give that person substantial credit even if they supplied no new ingredient in the original proof. Choosing worthwhile problems may end up mattering more than producing proofs."