> we urgently need to come up with good ways of explaining the value of having a large pool of human mathematical experts, even if it is no longer part of their role to find new proofs of theorems.
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the Fields medallists’ letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work under these circumstances.
Crazy take. Whatever justification existed before exists now. Why is generation of proofs justified but not understanding? What's the point of a proof if no one understands?
And anyway a mathematician's lifetime salary is basically nothing. I think total worldwide mathematics budget is less than a tenth of a percent of GDP. Meanwhile, openai cumulative loss stands at tens of billions?
I guess there is a bit of a realization from the laymen (and I'm speaking as a member of that group) that a lot of these problems are toy problems.
It's clear of Fermat's last theorem. But I figured that the Millennium Prize Problems (of which there are only 10) would have some real spillover into either physics or chemistry.
Yet when one of them gets solved, it seems to be that the argument is, "yeah but not like that".
Imagine if an AI solved cancer, or a vastly cheaper way to get into space, we wouldn't react like that.
layer8 · · focus · HN ↗
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the Fields medallists’ letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work under these circumstances.
ccppurcell · · focus · HN ↗
And anyway a mathematician's lifetime salary is basically nothing. I think total worldwide mathematics budget is less than a tenth of a percent of GDP. Meanwhile, openai cumulative loss stands at tens of billions?
faitswulff · · focus · HN ↗
kurtis_reed · · focus · HN ↗
ramblerman · · focus · HN ↗
It's clear of Fermat's last theorem. But I figured that the Millennium Prize Problems (of which there are only 10) would have some real spillover into either physics or chemistry.
Yet when one of them gets solved, it seems to be that the argument is, "yeah but not like that".
Imagine if an AI solved cancer, or a vastly cheaper way to get into space, we wouldn't react like that.