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. 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. 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
    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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.