Thread

1. ipdashc · 1790020558 · focus · HN ↗

   I knew mathematicians were a smart bunch, but honestly, the events of the past few weeks have really given me a new level of respect for them.

   They might be the first community I've seen to experience the AI "rush" and (at least as presented to an outside observer) immediately come together, assess the situation, and calmly, empathetically, and rationally act. They evaluated what AI is good at and what it lacks. They've thought through how it'll likely affect their field in the future. They've explained where the need for humans still lies, and made clear proposals for how to change their own field and for what demands to make of AI companies. Of course they're not all on the same page, but they're at least talking and trying.

   They haven't started worshipping the machine god and loudly claiming their whole field is solved. Nor have they flailed wildly at LLMs as if complaining enough about it will make them go away.

   Every major statement I've seen come out of the math community on this matter reads as well thought-through, humble, reasoned, and deeply human.

   In these days of fear, uncertainty, and obsolescence anxiety, honestly, they've given me some confidence that maybe we will figure this stuff out after all. Maybe we'll learn from them. Who knows.

   1. bananaflag · 1790021487 · focus · HN ↗

      > I knew mathematicians were a smart bunch, but honestly, the events of the past few weeks have really given me a new level of respect for them.

      As a mathematician, I am a bit disappointed by my (admittedly illustrious) colleagues.

      I get the need to take it slowly (and I am a quite impatient person, so I shouldn't get to decide stuff like this), but everything said feels a bit too sour grapes for my taste.

      Ok, maybe AI did not solve the field (I believe it will, btw), maybe there is a need for human "understanding", but:

      1) They don't seem to consider even the possibility (not the certainty) that they might be wrong, that math as we know it is gone, and we cannot "adapt"

      2) They seem to have been oblivious all these years about AI eventually reaching this point (at least I personally wasn't, I predicted this stage back in 2018)

      1. traes · 1790022482 · focus · HN ↗

         Regarding 1, it's not clear what you want them to actually do. Would you rather they just gave up, rolled over and died instead of at least trying to rescue their field? What is to be gained from considering this?

         1. besterman23 · 1790024597 · focus · HN ↗

            I suppose you could say, hypothetically, that if the field were “solved” then the protection of the feelings and sense of need for human understanding of the now obsolete practitioners might hinder any benefits that the now solve field could provide.

            The answer to this is probably just “get out of the way” and then your “work” would be to develop a better appreciation of what has been produced.

            1. ImPostingOnHN · 1790026620 · focus · HN ↗

               > The answer to this is probably just “get out of the way” and then your “work” would be to develop a better appreciation of what has been produced.

               They aren't in the way. AI labs can do their own math all they want, and nobody is stopping them. Rather, mathematicians are simply speaking about the topic.

               So is the answer that they should just shut up?

               1. p-e-w · 1790068031 · focus · HN ↗

                  They absolutely are in the way. We’ve had the most exciting months of mathematical progress since antiquity, and the vast majority of voices from mathematicians have been bitching about one thing or the other, to the extent that they now got themselves a committee that (co-)decides when, how, and possibly if, the next batch of results is made available to the public.

                  1. Ar-Curunir · 1790080746 · focus · HN ↗

                     Please. Have you been doing mathematics ? Yes, some big open problems are solved. I have not seen the ideas therein used to solve related or other problems. That is the point of most mathematics: to develop frameworks and general techniques for understanding and solving problems, not solving one-off problems.

                     For example, group theory lead to a useful way of thinking about how to solve a wide array of problems. That is what mathematicians are seeking.

                  2. ImPostingOnHN · 1790121798 · focus · HN ↗

                     People merely speaking their mind does not constitute getting in the way.

                     I'm sorry that you personally don't like that mathematicians are "bitching" about OpenAI snaking their work out from under them, and would like to silence them. But if we're going for consistency's sake, maybe consider taking your own advice here before giving it to others.

                     In the meantime, OpenAI can do whatever they want, mathematically-speaking. Nobody is in their way. If there isn't further meaningful progress from them, that would seem to strengthen the work-product-theft hypothesis.

            2. joe_the_user · 1790026863 · focus · HN ↗

               If LLMs could both prove any relevant theorem, explain such a theorem cogently and lay the groundwork for further theory, I don't see how any way mathematicians could stand in the way of that.
            3. breuleux · 1790085608 · focus · HN ↗

               > the feelings and sense of need for human understanding of the now obsolete practitioners might hinder any benefits that the now solve field could provide

               Wiping out an occupation that people enjoy and that gives them purpose (making them "obsolete") is a public mental health crisis, if anything. It's unclear that the "benefits" of the "solved" field actually outweigh that.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.