[few]

>So if your aim in doing mathematics is to achieve some kind of immortality, so to speak, then you should understand that that won’t necessarily be possible for much longer — not just for you, but for anybody.

This made me a little sad

[mentos]

I watched the movie '21' (2008) for free on YouTube yesterday.

The opening of the movie features the MIT campus full of students navigating its grounds and all the promise and status that higher education brings. [0]

Gave me the same sense of sadness realizing how much will fall to AI.

[0] - https://youtu.be/0lsUsWdkk0Y?si=TJl7f_b1RcWcDqF8&t=278

[lexoj]

Not free in my country, didn’t know YouTube was broadcasting full movies in certain regions as you imply.

[optimalsolver]

Are you able to watch this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdUI_0mIkec

[vessenes]

This was the most interesting line in the essay to me as well — I flashed back to quitting an academic math career instantly; the way I thought about it at 19 or 20 was that I didn’t think I could be world class at it. (Rightly). The next thought I had was “what am I good at?” And implied in that was at the very least “What could I be world class at?” Or at least very good at.

I don’t think I ever thought I was good enough to try and get (math) immortality by finding and naming some result that would live beyond me, but if I had, perhaps this bad news would have had a similar impact on me.

That said, I think I disagree with the premise at the margin, at least. I don’t care how many proof assistants or cluster compute is used - the team or person that proves the Riemann Hypothesis will be famous, or at least math famous.

[jdale27]

I don't know that it's that disappointing. I doubt most of the great mathematicians were actually doing it to achieve immortality. I suspect most of them were either after (possibly indirect) practical applications (via the math -> physics -> engineering pipeline) or just "for the love of the game", appreciation of the beauty of math and the intellectual joy of doing it. AI might also take over the practical application side, but the other aspects are still there for the taking.

[hodgehog11]

Exactly. Gowers is in the unique position to think about the "glory" of frontier mathematics, but for essentially everybody (especially those working outside of number theory), that dream died long ago. There are far too many mathematicians now.

Many mathematicians work because they love the breakthrough (a certain quote of Villani comes to mind). They love finding new results, uncovering new mysteries. From that point of view, having an AI that can build on your basic ideas and refine them into more powerful arguments is awesome, regardless of who gets the credit. There are those that treat it more like solving puzzles so the result is not of interest. From that point of view, I can see the dissatisfaction. But I have found those with that viewpoint don't tend to make it as far in academia as those with the other viewpoint.

[bananaflag]

Now repeat that for every sort of human achievement

[bel8]

Machines are comming even after table tennis :(

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVEzgYxDdrc

[pmontra]

Sports are safe. Machines came after runners (motogp, formula 1) and yet we cheer the winners of the 100 m at the Olympics Games. Fully autonomous bikes and cars won't change that. AIs destroy chess players. We still cheer the world champion.

We care about sports with humans.

[fragmede]

Robot MotoGP would be amazing to see just how far the limits could be pushed without risking the life of a human though. Or even full size remote control.

[Ekaros]

Sadly I don't think there is any safe tracks for proper autonomous car racing without limits... Still would be interesting to see what is the absolute best you could do if rules include only say minimum number of wheels and maximum dimensions for vehicles.

[dmd]

xkcd “what if” covered this: https://what-if.xkcd.com/116/