5 ms·

steam engines solved a problem people had

tim-kt 9d ago
If mathematicians aren't solving problems people are having (which your comment seems to imply), then putting them out of their job with AI is not a bad thing. Of course mathematicians are solving problems, just in a very different way than other professions.
- maths_math 6d ago
  Steam engines actually replaced what a horse does with a machine that could do the same job. So far LLMs aren't doing this - they're producing Lean proofs but very little to actually aid in understanding (again so far pretty much all of these proofs have been extremely difficult optimizations of known techniques). Mathematicians do solve a problem that people have: they build theories that explain the world and give us mental models to navigate questions in science, technology, etc., this just isn't a problem that LLMs solve. So the issue isn't so much that LLMs will replace mathematicians, but that AI companies bragging constantly about how their machines "solve math" will convince people who don't understand the value of math research to no longer fund it, or students who don't yet understand why learning math is useful for developing their brains that it's a waste of time. That could put mathematicians out of a job without providing a useful replacement. Motto: a mathematician's job isn't to solve the Hodge conjecture, it's to understand why the Hodge conjecture is or isn't true, and turn that understanding into something that makes it easier for the next person to grasp/use/enjoy. LLMs absolutely have the potential to make this job easier, but the way in which these companies are using them right now risks being antithetical to that goal.
hatsix 9d ago
Don't respond to a strawman argument with another strawman. The post you are responding to ignored the reasons given in the second paragraph. They're just trying to score points by preaching to the choir, not engage with the concern.
- suriyaG 9d ago
  what strawman? do you mean, > All things AI seems to assume that more and faster is better, but there is no justification of that assumption. is good argument? of course faster discovery without human in the loop is better. is that not what humans have been optimizing for the past few thousand years ? faster mobility, faster communication, faster medical recovery etc. everything modern civilization has to offer is because of a rush to get better and faster. for example, discovering penicillin 2 years early would've saved ~15 million people more. why is that not worthy enough to pursue?
suriyaG 9d ago
I suppose iphones solved a problem people had as well?

If mathematicians aren't solving problems people are having (which your comment seems to imply), then putting them out of their job with AI is not a bad thing. Of course mathematicians are solving problems, just in a very different way than other professions.

maths_math 6d ago
Steam engines actually replaced what a horse does with a machine that could do the same job. So far LLMs aren't doing this - they're producing Lean proofs but very little to actually aid in understanding (again so far pretty much all of these proofs have been extremely difficult optimizations of known techniques). Mathematicians do solve a problem that people have: they build theories that explain the world and give us mental models to navigate questions in science, technology, etc., this just isn't a problem that LLMs solve. So the issue isn't so much that LLMs will replace mathematicians, but that AI companies bragging constantly about how their machines "solve math" will convince people who don't understand the value of math research to no longer fund it, or students who don't yet understand why learning math is useful for developing their brains that it's a waste of time. That could put mathematicians out of a job without providing a useful replacement. Motto: a mathematician's job isn't to solve the Hodge conjecture, it's to understand why the Hodge conjecture is or isn't true, and turn that understanding into something that makes it easier for the next person to grasp/use/enjoy. LLMs absolutely have the potential to make this job easier, but the way in which these companies are using them right now risks being antithetical to that goal.

hatsix 9d ago

Don't respond to a strawman argument with another strawman. The post you are responding to ignored the reasons given in the second paragraph. They're just trying to score points by preaching to the choir, not engage with the concern.

suriyaG 9d ago
what strawman? do you mean, > All things AI seems to assume that more and faster is better, but there is no justification of that assumption. is good argument? of course faster discovery without human in the loop is better. is that not what humans have been optimizing for the past few thousand years ? faster mobility, faster communication, faster medical recovery etc. everything modern civilization has to offer is because of a rush to get better and faster. for example, discovering penicillin 2 years early would've saved ~15 million people more. why is that not worthy enough to pursue?

suriyaG 9d ago

I suppose iphones solved a problem people had as well?