Our AI system don't just do things. They do it because someone asks. A lot of the boom in AI maths results are solving human formulated problems mostly for PR benefit. Once the novelty passes, would Anthropic or OpenAI keep spending? And without mathematicians to ask the right questions and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?
> And without mathematicians to ask the right questions
Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting?
> and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?
Here, I think I agree. At some level, there has to be a human in the process that must understand / interpret the results.
I gotta say, however, that I'm not certain about my agreement. I'm worried that I'm missing something where the human can be excised from the process entirely.
> Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting?
But why would they ask the right questions without prompting? The LLMs have no intrinsic goal to research math problems, it would just be very costly to run queries without a reason to run them... arguably a human in that loop would be a mathematician, but then we do need them after all.
> But why would they ask the right questions without prompting?
What if the models are good enough (maybe even now?) so that all you have to say is "come up with a list of interesting problems overlooked by humans in <insert math discipline>. Then work on those proofs."
I don't think that's so far fetched. Especially given the news today about NS.
I think we know enough about reinforcement learning to tell that it won’t be able to entirely replace human mathematicians. All of the techniques used by these AI firms are well-studied.
I am not arguing that mathematicians would never use AI systems, they do. I am arguing that if we stop having mathematicians we would stop solving deep mathematical problems as there would be no one to ask the right questions.
I agree with the point, i hate the touch screens, and i think you should be able to control almost everything without taking your eyes off the road. The blindfold made me think of some david blaine stunt.
Just my local regular non hallucinogenic toads makes dogs drewl like crazy if they try to catch on (or more commonly find a toad chip road kill on the gravel roads)
Humanity is taking an interesting technological arc.
Terminator (1984 film) had a scene showing that in a future 2009, humans would use dogs to try to sniff out whether a robot passing for a human is secretly a machine.[1]
In our real world 2026, there are no humanoid machines that can complete basic generic tasks, like carrying a tray across the stage and holding it for 30 seconds.[2] They move slowly and badly (probably from an LLM like neural network doing very few frames per second of correction and analysis), and are nowhere near lifelike.
When they don't need a body to pass for a human, such as typing online, they do a bit better.
We can tell them apart from humans. As you say, they have stylistic quirks. And you mention that they're easy to spot because they come trained with inhuman amounts of trivial knowledge.
reply