Thread

1. piker · 1789636353 · focus · HN ↗

   > With that interpretation, the issue becomes slightly different: is it more important that the collective understanding of the mathematical community should be as advanced as possible or that there should be answers to as many problems as possible? Or are those two aims valuable in different ways, so that there is no point in declaring one of them more important? Or are they so inextricably linked that it makes no sense to argue that one is more important than the other? And when we say “important”, for whom are we saying it is important: for mathematicians, or for society as a whole?

   This is easy to me. Truth should be the North Star. If there is a fundamental truth that can be found via mathematics, then the shortest route to that truth should be preferred. While LLMs are definitely capable of solving problems in search of truth, I agree with Tao that instant "true/false" results threaten to short-circuit the traditional avenues we have used to escape local minima in the search for truth. Their products may be the junk food that provides immediate satiation in exchange for long-term health. Perhaps it's wrong, though.

   1. varjag · 1789637060 · focus · HN ↗

      The whole point of the letter was that if we adopt this gradient search strategy the humanity might get stuck in a local maximum forever.

      1. bananaflag · 1789637216 · focus · HN ↗

         Thing is, you can say that about any technology (not being here necessarily pro AI in math, but I think we need better arguments).

         1. varjag · 1789637361 · focus · HN ↗

            I mean sure? It's clear PLT and other applied CS fields are now as good as dead. You're never seeing new React or Python emerging ever again.

            And unfortunately mathematics is much more fundamental to human endeavor than this.

            1. sampullman · 1789638083 · focus · HN ↗

               I don't think that's true. Domain experts with the desire to create and experiment aren't going away any time soon.

               1. varjag · 1789638371 · focus · HN ↗

                  Sure we are free to tinker, like the guys doing model railways. With about the same impact.

                  1. sampullman · 1789641351 · focus · HN ↗

                     We'll have to check back in 5 or 10 years to see if anything new has been created.
               2. irthomasthomas · 1789650815 · focus · HN ↗

                  It is getting a lot harder for those people to justify using OpenAI to assist such endeavours. Afterall, OpenAI might just front-run you if they hear a rumor you solved some marquee problem that they can brag about in PR campaigns.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.