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. deterministic · 1790054791 · focus · HN ↗

      I disagree. Software developers seem to have adapted to AI much faster than the maths community.

      There are certainly still strong opponents of AI, but they seem to be a small, vocal minority. Most developers seem to have simply adapted and moved on.

      1. feanaro · 1790068191 · focus · HN ↗

         It's possible and I dare say even likely that you are missing nuance and observing bias from your bubble. It's possible to avoid being an AI "opponent" while still being a sceptic. It's possible to use AI reluctantly and with tact instead of going all in.

         The whole thing is far from over when we haven't experienced the worst of the technology yet: deskilling, concentration of power, extreme imbalance of wealth, military and surveillance uses, etc.

         1. deterministic · 1790210520 · focus · HN ↗

            > I dare say even likely that you are missing nuance and observing bias from your bubble

            I hope you’re not assuming you’re immune to being in a biased bubble yourself.

            I’m just honestly sharing my experience. Obviously, your experience has been different, but both experiences can be true at the same time.

            1. feanaro · 1790243908 · focus · HN ↗

               Of course, sorry if that came across as more combative than necessary. I was trying to point out two things I guess:

               1. "Your experience is not universal from my perspective, and I offer my experience as evidence"

               2. The possibility that this adaptation you are observing is neither a stable equilibrium given future developments, nor is necessarily an indication that the people using AI have bought into it fully. I use AI heavily while remaining a sceptic.

               1. deterministic · 1790298874 · focus · HN ↗

                  Hey, no problem, and thanks for the level-headed response. We need more of that in this world.

                  And yes, I agree that we still don’t know the long-term consequences of AI. But current LLMs are nowhere near good enough at judgment or new ideas to replace most jobs.

                  I expect they’ll mainly automate parts of jobs rather than replace them entirely. That’s exactly what I’m seeing as a software developer. I use an LLM to write my code, but it only works well when I apply good judgment and shape the context and prompts to remove ambiguity and then carefully review the results.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.