[vouaobrasil]

As a (sort of former) mathematician myself, I can say two things. First, one of the most exciting parts of mathematics is to see what other people can do with it and the results they obtain, and learning from them (and sharing with them in return).

And second, I am completely uninterested in what AI has to offer. To me (and most normal people) knowledge pursuit is about inspiring others with discovery and the intellectual joy of doing something yourself. Like it or not, that's a necessary requirement for any field to healthy. To put it more plainly, one cannot decouple the fun from the work. I suspect many are jealous of this, but whatever.

Therefore, I see no benefit to AI in math, none whatsoever. Senior mathematicians like Terry Tao might have a different approach because I can imagine: who can resist an oracle that can help them out with their toughest problems. But Dr. Tao IMO is too blinded by that to see the destructive nature of AI, and to be frank, a lot of top mathematicians have too much hubris to understand that they can't control AI.

[jpleyden98]

I don't see how AI in maths stops anyone from pursuing any sort of intellectual learning themselves.

In the same way children still learn their times tables even though calculators can do the job better.

To me (and most normal people) knowledge pursuit is about inspiring others with discovery and the intellectual joy of doing something yourself.

I disagree, for a lot of people knowledge pursuit is about the knowledge and the results of that knowledge. IE the end result is what matters.

As a simple example, Pythagoras's theorum is useful to lots of people all over the world as in the actual equation. I'm not sure most for most people that the knowledge that Pythagoras himself went through an intellectual journey to discover the theorum is more important than the equation itself.

If we use a thought experiment to say that instead of Pythagoras discovering the theorum it was actually discovered by artificial intelligence do you think most people would care? I would say not.

I think a lot of people like the idea of being at the forefront of their field and their intellectual contributions being able to push the frontier foreward. If AI simply gets good enough to largely absorb the frontier they don't find as much fun in rediscovering what AI has already discovered. People forget however, this has already happened to many fields, chess being one example.

Whether AI gets there with maths is an open question but to say AI has no value in maths whatsoever is to say that the practical implications of a better understanding of maths that AI could potentially give us is worth nothing.

[gravypod]

> And second, I am completely uninterested in what AI has to offer. To me (and most normal people) knowledge pursuit is about inspiring others with discovery and the intellectual joy of doing something yourself.

I often hear that people are "uninterested in what AI has to offer" but I don't really understand it. I understand this is a mix of ethics and engineering that I don't often engage with but I do not understand why someone would explicitly state that they are not interested in improvements to the world based on the source of the improvement.

The comment I am replying to did not say that LLMs cannot create improvements. That would be a different discussion! It instead says that it does not care about fruits born from the LLM tree.

It seems highly likely to me that through a combination of LLMs and traditional optimization software like vizier that manufacturing, industrial processes, scientific research, or even bakeries will see some improved output through the mixing of domain specific expertise and enablement from LLMs.

I think right now, in the extreme hype environment we live in where people say AI will do everything and take over the world and take your job and give you nothing, people are burned out. Once we get past this point through I am hoping people start talking about what LLMs can do that will actually improve our lives and which can actually work. Much of what people tell me LLMs can do, don't actually work reliably. But there are many cases where LLMs have been a step function in capabilities.

Examples: OCR that really works, fuzzy search, fixing scoped bugs in software, building prototypes of software, etc.

[qw3127]

People here don't want fun for others. The site is full of wannabe entrepreneurs whom daddy bought a startup and got VC friends to fund it.

They think they are better than you and me and everyone is just a human resource who has no right to enjoy anything.

That is why they hope for the industrialization of the sciences. The C students can feel equal to the A students.

Why Tao goes along? He is Chinese and they have an insatiable social pressure to be the first and best at "new" things. Since Yau tried to rip off Perelman, my view of the Chinese pressure cooker influence on Western academics has changed.

Especially since the results aren't the same as in the times when everything was more relaxed in academia and the stopwatch idiots hadn't taken over yet.

[seanhunter]

Terry Tao isn’t Chinese, he was born Australian and has lived in the US for a long time.