Thread

Advisory Group on Mathematics and Artificial Intelligence

77 points · 67 comments · js73js8

franticgecko3 · 1790015707 · focus · HN ↗
The first field field has fallen to AI.
I wasn't convinced until the mathematics community started responding, openly, with severe distress.
What will be next?
1. [deleted] · 1790015824 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
2. jfewhfuehg · 1790017322 · focus · HN ↗
  What if I told you that... Most math research was useless anyway. AI is going to expose a lot of grift.
  1. esafak · 1790017626 · focus · HN ↗
    Mathematicians never claimed that it was useful. It is up to you to find a use for it.
  2. dgellow · 1790018859 · focus · HN ↗
    There is not a lot of money in maths… what grift are you talking about?
  3. vablings · 1790019661 · focus · HN ↗
    What a stupid, anti-intellectualism take. Quite literally every single thing you use in your daily life is deeply ingrained in the research of mathematicians for literally thousands of years.
    The list is so long I couldn't even begin to describe
    jfewhfuehg · 1790019998 · focus · HN ↗
    No fucking way, I didn't realise. I was definitely talking about calculus.
    sigbottle · 1790020550 · focus · HN ↗
    20th century physics is heavily based off of abstract algebra (symmetry) and pretty much all of CS is based off of discrete mathematics.
    Not sure what you're trying to say. Any time someone wants to actually make a system and not a pile of spaghetti or inactionable philosophy (for all that I love philosophy), they reach for mathematics in some way, shape, or form.
    jfewhfuehg · 1790020865 · focus · HN ↗
    Also something I didn't know. We learn something new everyday and I certainly didn't study CS or anything. Also describes most of the research that gets funded these days.
    In all seriousness, I don't think even AI hallucinates this much. We should genuinely be concerned for society.
    sigbottle · 1790021317 · focus · HN ↗
    Alrighty man, if your worldview is, "Everything within my knowledge is the objectively correct amount of knowledge to learn, and everything outside of my knowledge is useless abstract garbage", you can live like that.
    pixl97 · 1790021627 · focus · HN ↗
    Live like that, I'm deeply concerned this man may get elected to one of the highest positions in the world!
    jfewhfuehg · 1790070496 · focus · HN ↗
    Me: "Most research that gets funded in maths is useless" You: "We use maths everyday"
    Do you see how our statements do not contradict each other?
    vablings · 1790088999 · focus · HN ↗
    I think you fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of research; Research is not always and is not commonly a problem in search of a solution it's the other way around, people find a topic of interest and race it out to conclusion and then share findings to allow other people to apply that knowledge.
    moralestapia · 1790022792 · focus · HN ↗
    GP said "most" not "all".
    Not knowing that difference strikes me as much more <I'm not gonna repeat what you wrote>.
    I agree with GP most Math is human slop. But to Math's favor, that slop is needed as once in a blue moon a great breakthrough comes off it. The slop is necessary groundwork.
    The slop has been automated now, so AI will drive most Math research going forward.
    Adapt or cope.
    cubefox · 1790062015 · focus · HN ↗
    Most research mathematics is completely useless pure mathematics. There is zero economic value in proving Navier-Stokes, the Riemann hypothesis, Goldbach's conjecture, P≠NP, the Collatz conjecture, the ABC conjecture and so on.
    Of course, large parts of science are also economically useless. Like analyzing the storms on Jupiter, or finding out what type of organism the extinct Prototaxites was.
    It's done because humans find it intrinsically interesting.
    > What a stupid, anti-intellectualism take.
    It's the other way round. What he said is true: Most research mathematics is useless. Denying this truth is stupid and anti-intellectual.
    vablings · 1790088804 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry, historically this is just downright false. There are hundreds of examples
    <a href="https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/280530/can-you-provide-me-historical-examples-of-pure-mathematics-becoming-useful" rel="nofollow">https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/280530/can-you-prov...
    cubefox · 1790093186 · focus · HN ↗
    1. None of these are the result of proving major open pure math conjectures.
    2. It is questionable whether these examples couldn't also have been invented by applied mathematicians as the practical need for them arose. Just like Newton came up with calculus to solve problems in science rather than as a pure math exercise.
    3. Even if the previous point doesn't always apply and some pure mathematics turns out to be genuinely useful without being realistically inventable by applied mathematicians: that doesn't mean this happens more than very rarely such that the overall expected economic value of spending money on pure math research is positive.
  4. auntienomen · 1790024027 · focus · HN ↗
    Most research isn't useful. Research on average is extremely useful. Great ideas are rare, and we don't know in advance where they are.
    If you do know, let me know and I'll lead a round for your VC fund. I for one would never have predicted that abstract topology would lead to nuclear weapons within a few generations.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.