| The whole article is about Terence Tao predicts it will be practical without a significant breakthrough. >> I don’t think mathematics will become solved. If there was another major breakthrough in AI, it’s possible, but I would say that in three years you will see notable progress, and it will become more and more manageable to actually use AI. He think you need another breakthrough to solve mathematics, i.e. making mathematicians obsolete. But even a major breakthrough doesn't happen, AI will be useful for mathematicians in 3 years. Of course you can still disagree with Terence Tao. He being one of the best mathematicians doesn't make him an oracle. > But nobody thinks that way when writing (or reading!) a proof He even very specifically addressed this issue with: >> Let’s say an AI supplies an incomprehensible, ugly proof. Then you can work with it, and you can analyze it. Suppose this proof uses 10 hypotheses to get one conclusion—if I delete one hypothesis, does the proof still work? He clearly believes an ugly, incomprehensible proof is much better than no proof at all. |