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. 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.