[est31]

One of the reasons why over a decade ago, I dived deeply into the OSS world instead of mathematics was that it was so much more accessible: there were docs for everything, and I got direct feedback when something worked vs when something didn't work. Most of my questions had answers on stack overflow, and once I joined Rust (which back then in 2015 didn't have a big stackoverflow presence) I had a community who answered them for me (and in maths I didn't have that).

AI makes the math world more accessible than before. If you have a question about a proof in the lecture, you can just ask it. Of course, one can't trust it blindly, but fundamentally it's amazing.

I think that's a good thing, but of course this means that a lot has to change in culture and behaviors, also in the research world.

The software engineering world is more or less in the same situation, it's also changing. But for now I think it still holds true that someone who knows maths plus an LLM is better than someone who doesn't know maths plus LLM. At least in software it does.

[rad_val]

Agreed. As someone who was always curious but had difficulties learning math the way it's taught at the university, AI teaching me the way no professor ever could is a blessing. I fail to see the point of the memo besides: we got here first and we decide what math is because we can. I'm really optimistic about AI and the value it brings in education. Gatekeepers will complain, but ultimately, will either adapt or be left behind.

[overgard]

I imagine the concern is more towards using LLM's to create proofs rather than using them to understand things.

[rad_val]

i haven't read their memo, but, the article talks about math being something deeply human and the AI taint. I think it's a bit of both.

[tz18]

>AI makes the math world more accessible than before. If you have a question about a proof in the lecture, you can just ask it.

I think that is great, really! but does anyone remember asking a TA or teacher or prof or parent and getting told you can work it out for yourself, or maybe just given a hint? What if that is an essential part of learning, having to work through things you don't understand, but that you have the tools, the foundation, to figure out.

A calculator can't teach you math. A forklift can't build your strength. This is really a double edged sword, as far as education or accessibility goes.

You have to constantly ask... what do I lose by not figuring it out myself?

[est31]

Yeah, among other factors, that "figure it out" mentality put me off in the end. Especially because often you need to show the same mentality unless you want to overkill proofs and spend more time on them than assigned to you. I sometimes miscalibrated and pointed out some details that didn't need pointing out in my proofs while in other proofs, I skipped over too many details for the TA.

Of course I agree that if the student just asks LLM to do their homework, they have not learned anything. But it's sad if one can't ask questions about a proof or such. Having the LLM around to review the homework submission is also useful, to make sure that the arguments are solid.

[fc417fc802]

You will have to learn to voluntarily figure things out for yourself without being pushed towards that. In a sense it's analogous to the presence of cheap calorie dense foods. In order to not be overweight you have to be mindful of and regulate your food intake in various ways.

Alternatively, perhaps universities will provide access to fine tuned models that are mindful of such things.

[Jtarii]

You can ask the LLM for a hint as well.

[nick__m]

You can but sadly most people ask for awnsers.