> we urgently need to come up with good ways of explaining the value of having a large pool of human mathematical experts, even if it is no longer part of their role to find new proofs of theorems.
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the Fields medallists’ letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work under these circumstances.
>why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things
imagine yourself living in the 1700s. how would you justify Newton and Leibniz's work on calculus?
all maritime engineering and trade was done with geometry and arithmetic at the time. there were no practical applications, not for likely at least a century until hydrodynamics were incorporated into shipbuilding
now look at today. how many of our modern technologies rely on the field having been birthed? that could only exist because of even further decades-worth of antecedent refinements, extrapolations, applications that had, at their time, no direct utilitarian cause?
there's no KPI to be derived from any academic field of study at the bleeding edge of theory. theoretical underpinnings lead to practical applications much further down the line after many paradigm shifts
semiotics and cultural capital as theoretical concepts is another example - at the time they were purely seen as navel-gazey literary theory work. these days, half a century later, they're in wide use (for better or worse) in marketing and advertising - they birthed the whole concept of 'branding'
not everything needs immediate, quantifiable justification. to believe it does indicates a need for a period of self-reflection, to figure out how and when you became so heavily influenced by the MBA-brained propaganda that the world should revolve around the quarter-by-quarter creation of capital
True, but this is also a stunning example of survivorship bias.
Countless other mathematical curiosities were developed in the 1700s -- and forgotten. Calculus just happens to be the one that found practical applications later, so that's the one that's well known today.
It's difficult to draw the conclusion that "every possible branch of learning ought to be funded" by appealing to "later practical value" based on this cherrypicked example.
On the other hand, clearly _some_ novel theoretical work with no apparent immediate value _does_ yield real world benefit later.
Since we lack the resources to fund every PhD with a crazy theory on what the next new subfield ought to be, how do we decide?
Seems like AI could help massively there, by removing a huge bottleneck around technical elaboration and application seeking.
> Countless other mathematical curiosities were developed in the 1700s -- and forgotten. Calculus just happens to be the one that found practical applications later, so that's the one that's well known today.
1. You may not agree, but some people will argue that knowledge is worth accumulating in itself. We fund astronomy well beyond the solar system despite there being no real prospect of practical applications.
2. The value of calculus justifies the cost of all the curiosities. The economic benefits of funding lots of "curiosities" was well worth the few that were useful.
in general, yes. but specifically studying exoplant A or exoplanet B? or understanding dark matter? or driving a little science robot on Mars? what's the immediate utility of that?
The same thing could have been asked of radio waves when they were first discovered. It was actually considered purely an academic curiosity with no practical application. You can't know ahead of time which discoveries will be the lynchpin for some as yet unimagined future advance. Much like VC you need to spread out your bets and expect that most won't make direct return, but that every now and then something with 10000x return will surface.
You can call it survivorship bias, but another way to phrase it is that it's very difficult to forecast the practical benefit of any one piece of mathematics even while the long-term impact of mathematics as a whole is undeniable. And any schemes to further ration resources among mathematicians ignores the reality that for such foundational subject, math research already one of the least funded compared to other disciplines or domestic priorities.
"Falsifiability" is generally understood in terms of physical observations. Mathematics is ultimately tautological: they are true or false by their own definition, without reference to the physical world.
It just so happens that certain kinds of mathematics are unreasonably effective in drawing parallels to the physical world, but as far as mathematicians are concerned those mathematics are neither better nor worse than those that do not correspond to anything tangible.
And if calculus was the only useful thing to come out of 1600s mathematical research, it would have been worth it. The other dead ends don't need to justify themselves. Getting one thing of this magnitude justifies it all
On how to select what to fund in the future: find the brightest minds, fund whatever they want to do. That tends to work out in aggregate
> Seems like AI could help massively there, by removing a huge bottleneck around technical elaboration and application seeking.
Are you proposing that humanity should rely on AI to determine the fields of study that should be perused and those that should be defunded?
Why don't you first come up with an AI that can predict if the stock market will go up or down tomorrow, with 99.999% accuracy. Should be really simple as it only needs to answer what will happen tomorrow.
After that, come up with the AI that will predict how actions or non-actions today may affect outcomes 100 years into the future.
Also it ignores the fact that the core of calculus and the idea of dealing with infinitesimal quantities was independently discovered for many centuries. eg. Archimedes use techniques that were eerily similar to integrals.
The work that Newton and Leibniz did was in formalizing it and coming up with the notation that would end up being more widely accepted and applicable. It's very likely that the techniques would have been developed later to solve a practical problem.
I actually just think every person should have their basic survival provided for efficiently by society. My argument is that most people only veg out because they are tired of a hectic work life, but if given the chance to coast for a long time they would find productive work voluntarily and be more inclined to share their work. My claim then, is that society would net a benefit from this arrangement which would more than pay for itself. And you don’t have to try to pick winners and losers.
It's very unlikely anyone with the intelligence to contribute to math research can't already find a non-hectic job that provides for their basic survival. People choose hectic jobs because they want to do better than basic survival.
> My argument is that most people only veg out because they are tired of a hectic work life, but if given the chance to coast for a long time they would find productive work voluntarily and be more inclined to share their work
We have natural experiments of this: retirees, both early and otherwise. Do retirees during the first five years of their retirement "find productive work voluntarily" (your choice of words, not mine) in quantities that are comparable to what they did at work during the five years prior to their retirement? Not exceptional individuals, but on average.
I retired circa five years ago and spend my time doing stuff like walking the dog, drinking coffee and reading books, much like other retirees. My productivity is as close to zero as I can muster, and it is the rule, not the exception.
It's not survivorship bias, because math isn't a bunch of independent, parallel things, where one turned out to be useful and the rest was junk. There is no known way to advance only the portions of math that, centuries later, will turn out to be economically useful. Even with AI, we only know how to advance the entire subject.
> Countless other mathematical curiosities were developed in the 1700s -- and forgotten.
Really? Like what?
edit: this is either an unfalsifiable claim, because by "forgotten" you meant here is no extant knowledge or remaining record of it, or it's almost certainly nonsense and anything you could cite would be foundational to some area of modern mathematics, even if as a disproven counter theory.
A maybe example that springs to mind is how Gauss discovered the FFT in the early 1800s (predating even Fourier analysis) but didn't find it interesting enough to publish, so while his work was important, it was also forgotten and had to be rediscovered.
>> imagine yourself living in the 1700s. how would you justify Newton and Leibniz's work on calculus
The direct use of that math to biuld better weapons. That math was/is essential to the development of modern artillery. The first tasks assigned most early computers were to calculate ballistic trajectories, and also tide tables which also have immense military applications. Math was and is a weapon.
You bemoan the cherry picked example and counter with an unfalsifiable claim. Certainly we have remembered much more math than Calculus, and much of it has been of practical use.
How can we hope to quantity the expenditure on math we've collectively forgotten? It's unknowable by definition. The only reasonable thing to do is to determine the value added after the expense paid. Even in a world where calculus is the only thing that we took away from the math of 1700s my guess is that this is still an economically beneficial calculation.
The claim is falsifiable; the bulk of 18th century math is "forgotten" in the sense that few, if any, people still use or apply or even know about it.
It's not "forgotten" in the technical sense that one _can_ still go dig into the dusty archives of any number of old university libraries, and review learned journals, diaries, commonplace books, personal correspondence, and so on from the 1700s that describe the mathematical work of the day in detail.
You can then systematically review that work, and test whether the claim that "nearly all mathematical output of the 18th century has been generally forgotten and never found any use."
I hypothesize that this experiment will show that nearly all of the mathematical output of the time long ago fell into oblivion. This is a falsifiable claim.
Your claim is still rubissh, as you neglected to interact with the rest of my comment: economic utility does not necessitate all mathematical output directly contributes.
You redefine "forgot" to make it falsiable, but also neglect that you need to refute that some "forgotten" work didn't contribute to new work down the line.
Science funding was different back then. It was a rich men hobby, something done for amusement or to impress other rich men.
Today, science funding comes out of the tax collected from everyone. The taxpayers want an explanation for how their money is spent. It could be, of course, vanity, just like it was before (taxpayer money is spent on sporting events, for example because people root for the athletes who represent them)... but, maybe there's a better way?
I agree, I really do. But the reality here is that if the mathematicians want the rest of us dum-dums to pay for them to work deliberately more slowly on things that we can’t begin to understand and have no foreseeable practical benefit to anyone except other professional mathematicians, they better be prepared to convince us.
Different academic disciplines are very different, and most don't engage in the same kind of black-and-white problem solving that mathematicians do, where you either have solved a problem or you haven't.
But all insist that you engage in some sort of outwardly visible production in your field: books, articles, conference presentations, public lectures, exhibitions, performances, something.
We haven't yet figured out what that should be, but I presume that everyone would agree that this should continue. As one possible model, check out this blog post of Terry Tao's, where he gives his own perspective on the recently proved Jacobian conjecture.
When computers can solve the underlying actual problem, this sort of work seems likely to rise in value, and be something which a greater number of mathematicians engage in.
I would like to ask a question to you as a math professor: I think we all agree we do not know what the discipline will look like in ten years. But doesn't the rapid surge in mathematical proofs and methods imply that - at least for the coming years - there will be more, not less, work for mathematics?
Consider the "Jacobian conjecture counterexample": the work doesn't simply end once Terence Tao explains the computer-generated proof to a wider specialist audience.
1. I assume that the counterexample will give rise to a host of new questions, each of which will in turn need to be resolved. In the long run, the process of formulating questions might also be automated by AI - but likely not within the next few years to such an extent the growth of knowledge results in a decline in relevant questions.
2. Mathematicians will have a great deal to do in terms of meaningfully formalizing results within Mathlib - and hopefully Isabelle/HOL and other systems as well. From what I have read, the way current AI formalizes theorems makes them unsuitable for these libraries. I envision this as an undertaking not unlike the development of the Linux kernel. Throughout this formalization process, there should always be a human who has actually grasped the reasoning to ensure the AI hasn't simply exploited a flaw of the system.
3. Physics, chemistry, and many other sciences are currently benefiting from AI to a lesser extent. I anticipate significant changes at the interface between mathematics and other sciences as the body of mathematical knowledge expands dramatically. I cannot imagine this resulting in anything other than an increased workload, at least for the next few years.
Isn't it likely that mathematicians' workloads will initially rise rather than fall, provided they are willing to accept a shift in the nature of their tasks?
In practice, mathematicians' workloads have been a function of their work ethic, motivation, and competing demands on their time. There's no big-picture question of "how much math there is to do now"; the amount of remaining math to discover has long been presumed to be, for all intents and purposes, infinite. (Similar questions are relevant on a much smaller scale -- for example in case of someone who has specialized in a narrow specialty which goes dead.)
Your (1) is most certainly true.
As for your (2), most mathematicians I know have at most a passing interest in formalization, Mathlib, and Lean. My understanding, which is admittedly quite superficial, is that AI is actually getting quite good at translating human-readable mathematics. I could be mistaken about this, but even if there is a lot of human work to do, it sounds like a lot of anal-retentive oversight of work you didn't do yourself -- the sort of task that academics love to complain about!
Perhaps human interest in Lean will grow, but I don't anticipate it occupying the attention of more than a small slice of the community.
Your (3) is an interesting question. I work on the theoretical rather than applied side, but what you describe might very well be true for applied mathematicians.
> But all insist that you engage in some sort of outwardly visible production in your field: books, articles, conference presentations, public lectures, exhibitions, performances, something.
My vote is for interpretive dance. Give the laity something for their money.
Tao's blog is a nice example of human interpretation of math. He explains in an understandable but rigorous way beyond what would just be in a journal paper (or the output of an AI).
Lest someone gets the wrong impression, I think that any mention of the a priori strange-looking resolution to the Jacobian conjecture should be accompanied with a read of pages 160–161 of https://arxiv.org/abs/2609.05746. The tl;dr being that the very same construction featuring in the resolution appeared earlier in a draft paper that was accidentally made publically available for a travel award application. The same story has accompanied several other of the major announcements made by now. We haven't have a move 37 for maths yet, despite what OpenAI's marketing department might want you to believe.
Similarly, if all you ever read were OpenAI blog posts, you would get a very wrong impression of the usefulness of large language models of today in maths. For a working researcher, it's not a magic wand that you point at any given proposition and it tells you whether that proposition is true or not. It does appear to help if, while pointing your wand and utter the magical incantation “do it up bro”, you also make it convert $15 million into heat, but for most people, this kind of inverted Midas touch isn't quite accessible yet.
Instead, the reality seems to be closer to this, projecting a fair bit: a given mathematician will have a collection of propositions that they care about, and that they'll use as their own internal benchmark as new models come out. Very rarely will anything come out of it, but sometimes, in particular if you make sure to provide the wand with all relevant context, papers that could be relevant, proof strategies and lemma structures that you suspect are useful, something (which may or may not be plagiarism) will pop out, and that's really nifty. Moreover, it is not unimportant what the proposition and the relevant proof is like. And what does come out tends to be quite bizarre; proofs that use terminology that doesn't exist, seem overly pretentious, based on nonsense analogies where it's surprising that it even works at all, and the only comfort is that you can join it with an equally unreadable Lean blob. And where you would be _crazy_ to just publish those artifacts and think that you have contributed much of anything to maths.
But sometimes it works. It's still very unclear what kind of maths the models are good at, but it seems to certainly be an advantage if what you're looking for is a counterexample hidden in a pile of otherwise similar-looking non-counterexamples, if your proof is one that requires considering 36 different cases, each of which are so tedious that no researcher would have the patience to go through them by hand, or if the proof is an amalgamation of several existing structures, some of which are only documented in Georgian.
The gold rush, more than anything else, seems to be populating the convex hull of existing maths.
This can all change. The $15 million wand requirement today will be less tomorrow. Whether we ever get a move 37 is less clear, or whether we will eventually reach stagnation as all low-hanging fruit is picked, and the convex hull is populated; call this cope if you like. But maybe we do get move 37s all over the place, and it's fine that people think about what that future will look like.
Until then, and while we're still picking friut, let us rather have a think about what we can do to fix the incentive mismatch, to ensure that we increase the prestige of digestion over being the first to convince the LLM to do it up. Since that's the one thing everyone seems to agree, chances are it'll probably converge to something that doesn't have to be written in commandment form, but out of the guest posts hosted by Tao so far, the one by Antieau has some useful suggestions for standards (that aren't entirely unlike those from Leiden): https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/15/fast-math-slow-mat...
> It does appear to help if, while pointing your wand and utter the magical incantation “do it up bro”, you also make it convert $15 million into heat, but for most people, this kind of inverted Midas touch isn't quite accessible yet.
That's like where chess was when Deep Blue was built by IBM. Productivity improved. There was someone complaining on here recently that the seat-back entertainment system on some airline had a chess program set to "trounce all humans".
I don't think that the main issue either discussed by Gowers or the others who have signed the letter is simply that mathematicians should be paid "for merely understanding things". The main issue is outsourcing, laziness, and learned helplessness.
Outsourcing understanding, teaching, and proving maths to LLMs is just as dumb as outsourcing food production, manufacturing, or entertainment to a foreign power. It's not that we haven't already done most of those things in the pursuit of temporary profit optimization, but each of them has obviously bad impacts on both the individuals in society who perform those tasks, and on risks to everyone when that outsourcing fails for any reason.
As described, using LLMs is like navigating with GPS. It's fine when you're using it to optimize a path due to traffic conditions, but it can be deadly if you're flying a plane and suddenly don't have it, or any training to deal with that situation. That is where we're headed. I don't really have a take on signing the letter in particular, because as mentioned it seems a bit pointless. At the same time it also seems a bit pointless to spend $10s of millions proving a conjecture a few months sooner than a group of mathematicians already were. I don't imagine they were going to make millions doing it. The definition of material waste.
Perhaps it serves a temporary marketing win for OpenAI, or a medium term improvement in LLM performance on some productive output, but longer term it certainly risks ceding whole swaths of human endeavor to a tool we may not always have. Just as falling demand for farmers, or skilled machinists, or writers, or artists is not an immediate crisis, in the long term there is no one left to transfer the knowledge to the next generation, if something goes wrong.
Crazy take. Whatever justification existed before exists now. Why is generation of proofs justified but not understanding? What's the point of a proof if no one understands?
And anyway a mathematician's lifetime salary is basically nothing. I think total worldwide mathematics budget is less than a tenth of a percent of GDP. Meanwhile, openai cumulative loss stands at tens of billions?
> why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work under these circumstances.
This is blinders on thinking. The future we are looking at with the help of AI is full of abundance. Money is not an issue in that world.
> The future we are looking at with the help of AI is full of abundance.
Why would you think that, when the gains of productivity increases haven't been distributed uniformly during the past several decades? What could disrupt the current trend towards more concentration?
Well, we can reduce every human activity to 0 value and take it from there: if there’s no value in understanding there’s no place for humans in the process, we can just go back to worshipping stones and let the AIs burn tokens deluding themselves chasing their hallucinations
yeah, this MBA-brained philosophy that 'everything must have KPIs' is so incredibly short-term. research looking for directly, immediately quantifiable production results goes against the entire grain of why we push for bleeding edge research
like, ask yourself, in Newton's time, was there much application for calculus? what about today? this is almost universally applicable to all research because even null findings are a map marker of where not-to-look
Take the tax system and the state out of the picture. How does a mathematician convince his fellow citizens that they should fund their work? Newton didn’t have to do that, he had income from other sources and did most of his mathematical research as a hobby
because it could lead to something. the whole point of academic research is to uncover, as closely as possible, truths about how all of our myriad, hyper-complex systems work. not every truth uncovered is convertable to direct improvements on people's quality of life. like, how does understanding evolutionary biology matter to your average person? or finding the Higgs boson? should we just drop these research avenues because your average person won't benefit? or can we trust, based on historical precedence, that the slow march of research has created many of the luxuries we enjoy today?
This is meant to be a funny, stylized comment. If you can't bother to read to the end, just ask a chatbot to explain it to you.
Most people do not use any math after school in their lives. All of their real problems are political. Kids spend significant time in school being told that math teaches them "problem solving" and then leave school and discover, since math solves no political problems, math doesn't solve problems at all. In other places around the world, where by many measures people are much more numerate than Americans, people are actually poorer and live under more authoritarian governments. In industry, math has been reduced to a shibboleth for a neurodivergent lack of ethics, which is why mathematics PhDs go into banking, and never politics - and we imagine politicians and lawyers to lack ethics, which is pure projection, nearly all of our best presidents and congressmen were lawyers. Even the academic environment that supports mathematicians and the STEM community generally - all of that concentrated neurodivergence and lack of people skills has led to less political power, which means less funding and less new students, which has been much more threatening to mathematics than automated proofs.
I love math, but my honest POV is, the value of theoretical math cannot get much lower. The crisis is insurmountable. The community made its deal with the devil (Jim Simons) long ago, it thought it was a STEM discipline like bio and it's really a philanthropic humanities discipline like opera. Math is having its opera moment. Someone would have to step up as the rich person who saves math, and unfortunately, all the best candidates are right now destroying it with chatbots.
It's inherently political for so many reasons including the fight for taking action that apparently has no meaning. This very debate in other words. So I disagree. It's like philosophy (or opera) and there's nothing wrong with that.
> failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things
Mathematicians receive almost no funding, as it is pennies coming from the already anemic NSF budget. I don't even know why it's a question as to why liberal arts needs more funding. They don't get any to begin with!
Depends. Do you think human mathematicians will be entirely useless for any kind of input into the act of doing mathematics? If not then we'd be advised, imo, to keep funding which is inherently just a training pipeline.
The person who might have made a mathematics breakthrough that results in some miraculous medical or other discovery will likely have decided it's not economically prudent to pursue a career (pure math academia) that the tech sages, in their all encompassing wisdom (exclusively over the next 1 to 2 financial quarters), have deemed worthless, and that instead he or she should just respond to that pesky Big Four recruiter who keeps dangling a cushy six figure internship.
> mathematics breakthrough that results in some miraculous medical or other discovery
Do you believe it is possible or have any recent examples? I feel like most of the stuff that could be applied to something like this has probably already been developed 100 years ago. This hope for some miracle math that cures cancer sounds like the thing they tell the government to keep the funding going. Most of modern pure mathematics doesn't look like it has any chance of being that. It's getting more specialized every day with more and more papers on obscure topics being published that 2 people in the world read.
I'd love to be corrected as I quite enjoy mathematics myself, though not professionally.
> Most of modern pure mathematics doesn't look like it has any chance of being that.
The stuff powering current tech (incl LLMs), the very foundational math, could have been described in exactly that way when it was new. Number theory, basis of most cryptography, was "pure math" not too long ago. It's only useful in hindsight.
Yes, there's so many applications that we couldn't even imagine until we got modern computers, and most of us couldn't imagine them either until we got them. What didn't sit right with me is that these concepts are a very small subset of mathematics, and look like "basic" stuff, while the branches got developed much further than what the applications could catch up with. You don't need Fermat's last theorem for cryptography, for example. I have no idea if we'll ever need homotopy groups of high-dimensional spheres, etc.
Either way it seems like nobody is in a position to say "this branch of math will surely stay arcane abstract nonsense forever", so the argument for continuing specialized math research comes down to "we might lose out on some cool stuff if we stop", even if most of it will indeed remain useless for a long time.
Exactly. Most results will stay "useless" in the sense of not having a direct application. But the process of having figured out those results is a necessary step on the way of figuring out those few things that eventually do have a direct application. And you don't know which is which beforehand.
(Besides, it's not more useless than playing the piano. But that's a whole other type of conversation. Though it shares resemblance if you think about it long enough.)
There's been some knot theory applied to molecule analysis chemistry as well as things like topological quantum field theory, with both of those being examples of fields that benefit greatly from previously unapplied mathematics introducing tools to use.
Thanks, that sounds interesting. As I said in a parallel comment after some thought on this, nobody can really say with absolute certainty that a particular branch will forever stay useless, so that should be good enough to keep going.
Sometimes one can be convinced that their mathematics will be useful, too. I've just recalled a rather motivating (though his life story is rather sad) quote by Grassmann, the inventor of modern linear algebra, whose mathematical work was not appreciated during his lifetime.
"I remain completely confident that the labour I have expended on the science presented here and which has demanded a significant part of my life as well as the most strenuous application of my powers, will not be lost. It is true that I am aware that the form which I have given the science is imperfect and must be imperfect. But I know and feel obliged to state (though I run the risk of seeming arrogant) that even if this work should again remain unused for another seventeen years or even longer, without entering into the actual development of science, still that time will come when it will be brought forth from the dust of oblivion and when ideas now dormant will bring forth fruit. I know that if I also fail to gather around me (as I have until now desired in vain) a circle of scholars, whom I could fructify with these ideas, and whom I could stimulate to develop and enrich them further, yet there will come a time when these ideas, perhaps in a new form, will arise anew and will enter into a living communication with contemporary developments. For truth is eternal and divine."
> Do you think human mathematicians will be entirely useless for any kind of input into the act of doing mathematics?
Not at all. My point is that the Fields medallists’ letter didn’t provide good arguments, not that there aren’t any. And therefore I’m agreeing with the Gowers quote above.
I'm genuinely unclear on what you mean here. Do you mean:
1. Most mathematicians are currently largely paid as part of their academic job (as a faculty member) and will continue to do that work (including the research part) even if extra-mural grant funding goes away. That seems entirely plausible to me.
Or do you mean?
2. Real mathematicians will continue to devote a significant part of their life/energy to mathematics research as a hobby, even if no one is paying them (in any way) to do it? That seems more of a reach and makes me wonder if many currently folks current employed as mathematicians aren't 'Real mathematicians' from your point of view.
So we should return to a renaissance world where only the wealthy or sponsored can do research, teach, and promote the wonders of creativity. Just hope the oligarchs give us prols enough gruel to create our own solipsistic knowledge no one else knows much less cares about, entertained by LLMs optimized to placate our desires and extract money/attention.
A world of cheap AI makes research available to anyone who can afford to run the AI, in a similar way to how ubiquitous cheap computing hardware has made software development possible at the personal level.
As someone said below, many research on the side for a decade while having an ordinary job/life. It's often the best environment. No great research was reached at IAS.
With the assistance of AI, we are entering a golden age of individual math research without the need of huge institutions
As a mathematician, summer salary (from grants) is nice but I could do without it.
But external funding, e.g. from the NSF, also supports conferences -- and I suspect that few people would be willing to attend if they had to pay out of pocket. Without this opportunity to talk to one another, the field would be much worse off.
I’m inclined to agree. Sometimes when (perhaps other) people say this there’s an undertone of “and the field is full of not-real mathematicians” as if there’s a large contingent just hanging on for the money or prestige, and I personally haven’t seen that in the wild.
This is really a microcosm of one particular problem that AI presents to the world: what do people do when their labour is not required any longer?
Here the worry is the social structures of mathematics are eroded such that fewer humans become able to do the work and less well, similarly to how juniors are being recruited less in software engineering, breaking the ladder and leading to fewer seniors in the years to come.
The answer to this really depends strongly on what AI can actually accomplish, but I’ll assume the maximal case and say that AI can do everything economically necessary, and further even those things just desired, such that human labour isn’t required for anything that anyone wants in a practical sense.
Here, we don’t need a human understanding of mathematics to give people a perfect standard of living. We also don’t need humans involved with anything else.
Everything therefore becomes a hobby or a game. People do things because they enjoy them for their own sake, or because they are endeavours used as vehicles to socialise and enjoy others’ company, or because a shared social belief exists and is cultivated such that doing such and such a thing confers social status.
And I think that’s more or less it. I predict we may see some fairly strange sorts of things, such as games where the team structure looks like the descendant of a company org and they compete in an artificial economy. Likewise we may see gamified versions of universities and academia. All of these would be “tamed” such that the rougher parts of the experiences were sanded off.
Sort of like how we evolved in an ancestral environment, and we have certain drives and expectations driven by that environment even though they no longer matter for survival. Our social structures may be derived similarly from those of today, even after they have ceased to serve a real purpose, but changed and repurposed to give meaning and community.
> what do people do when their labour is not required any longer
I don't think this is the main issue (if at all) discussed here or in the field medalist letter. If anything, the majority of pure mathematics graduates are absorbed from the industry and a lot of exodus happens along the different scales of academia to there (though industry is also dealing with this issue but that's not what's concerned here). The issue discussed is what mathematics itself will be, which is much deeper. AI finding proofs to open problems does not solve at all the question of how to produce new problems, and there is no indication imo that there is way to go with that with AI.
Pure mathematics is not like applied sciences, as it is only tangentially influenced by external applications. Deciding which problems to tackle is a social process and a matter of taste/aesthetics, and is built largely through the exact friction that is more and more removed with AI. This is what makes it unclear how one can find problems without this friction, and none of these posts/letters have an answer really. Each one seems to describe just different standpoints than concrete, practical ideas.
[Sorry that none of the following is concrete, but perhaps elucidating the paradox contained within might open our minds to .. the shape of the paths to action ?]
Your productive friction (eutripsis? ~ negentropy? Viscosity!!!???) seems like a wonderful concept that the original letter should have flagged to rally the community ( Gowers might not have missed this point if they had a new name for it!)
Tao had a relevant talk about the paradox of efficiency..
Still abstract, but nearer to quantitative (mathematical anthrop(ic)ology even?): ordinary, bad friction is, eg, "size-consistent"
Coasean Ceiling: organizational size limit where the internal friction of managing a firm consumes all of its energy, leaving nothing left for actual production
That's a good point. And yeah I got the term from Tao, as I had not described it this way before but I think it elucidates well the issue.
The problem imo is that, from a purely psychological/phenomenological perspective, there is not always a perceivable difference between "eutripsis" and "dystripsis" (just made it up but "dys" is the opposite of "eu") as experienced. There is some reward coming from learning through friction (depending on personal interests, environment etc), but mostly it is effort and humans usually try to reduce or avoid effort.
Moreover, even if one tries to be fully mindful and choose where to employ friction and where not, there could be systemic factors to optimise away any kind of friction. Imo we already see that in software engineering, judging from a lot of different anecdotes, where increasing the pace of generating code sacrifising human understanding is already taking place. It is not like these forces are not already in place widely in academia too even before AI (eg optimising for paper output quantity), so AI reinforcing this direction sounds a reasonably probable scenario, unless some other action is taken.
Ah, contrary to what I mused elsewhere, concreteness can also lead to bad friction
Eg, KPIs, metrics, but of productivity, of "veracity", not understanding
Anecdotes--> better friction than data, sometimes, though :)
How about Inverse Metrics. of simplicity? Parsimony? Shortness of code? (Efficiency/compressibility is a sort of "intensive" metric, so it might not be especially relevant, thermodynamically speaking)
Just taxidermy, stamp collecting, and vibe-anthropologizing here TT
> that AI can do everything economically necessary
Who gets to define this? Those with power are famously bad at understanding long-term implications, how things work, and what matters - especially when it comes to funding things like research.
I agree with your argument of expected societal shift, but it's important to keep in mind that this is largely a developed country issue. It'll be a while before child-staffed cobalt mines or whatever is superseded. A significant amount of poverty could be alleviated through improved resource distribution and policy, without really needing improved productivity/increased resource production.
> A significant amount of poverty could be alleviated through improved resource distribution and policy, without really needing improved productivity/increased resource production.
reply
The concern is that AI will further reduce the leverage we have to improve resource distribution, and that we'll return to something that more closely resembles feudalism (IIRC, wealth inequality is already close to where it was in feudal times, albeit we're all richer overall). And/or that (because people won't accept that) we'll end up in a war situation.
You'd think the people who own the technology would be smart enough to avoid that outcome, but so far they aren't showing any signs of it.
Louis chude sokei provides some insights into the historic intertwinedness of race and technology, including the term robot and its epistemological connection to race riots in the US, early to recent sci fi (from victorian age to the apparently adequate representation of rastafarianism as in mel gibson)
It is a great read to sensitise oneself to a different perspective as machine as the other of human thtough the lens of the history of people who were considered just that (machines&other)
I somewhat disagree. we still need humans to provide direction and context and expanded the concept of... well everything. But we will certainly need less of them. AI will afford the ability to more quickly disseminate state-of-the-art. As soon as a breakthrough is discovered, you no longer need to read 300 whitepapers to hopefully stumble upon it, AI will identify relevancy quicker.
AI didnt break through stavier-nokes until a human set the initial direction. That's not going to change.
>AI didnt break through stavier-nokes until a human set the initial direction. That's not going to change.
Why isn't this going to change?
Right now it's easy to see why don't set AI lose on every problem, someone human or AI has to delegate rare resources between competing interests. But if we look at general compute it was no different in the past. In 1980 you had to ask for permission to get CPU compute time. In 2026 you run it on your own computer, or maybe pay for it on Amazon. The constraints are much different.
If we keep pumping out chips and increasing efficieny someone will just make the LLM into an agentic loop (build the harness in) and set it lose on problems.
It’s like asking why we don’t just run all the programs instead of making users decide what to run. There’s an infinite number of problems that could be solved, and the question of which ones are important to solve is a question about us and what we want.
I’ve never read it but I did look up the Wikipedia summary after your comment.
I don’t see the similarity? It’s a dystopia run by a maniacal computer and everyone is forced to live underground until the machine collapses for some reason?
> I don’t see the similarity? It’s a dystopia run by a maniacal computer and everyone is forced to live underground until the machine collapses for some reason?
I read that same summary. The similarity is pretty clear: the first step was letting a machine take over all economic and intellectual functions, leaving humanity useless and dependent it.
This is practically impossible, because the "economically necessary" things to do are never fixed but instead are in a state of constant fluctuation.
Furthermore, a chain is only strong as it's weakest link. AI alone is not sufficient to do all the "economically necessary" things. We would need vast numbers of highly advanced robots to do the rest of the work going on in the world (which is >> than the work currently done by AI). So if we restrict the definition of "economically necessary" to mean the subset of all possible tasks that we currently need to do, then we are sorely lacking in the required infrastructure. We may never get there either.
In the meantime, the labor shock knowledge workers experience could lead to large unemployment. Even those that find work doing non-knowledge work, the decrease in pay and benefits may be substantial.
I think these realities are worth understanding to help ground these pie in the sky ideas about what the future will be like. Not to be mean, but your idea of the future is basically a fantasy.
Did you even read the open letter? Mathematicians are annoyed because the proof is only meaningful if people understand it and came to it. I mean I’m basically just summarising it now but it’s annoying you didn’t read it or can’t comprehend its nuance.
> Everything therefore becomes a hobby or a game. People do things because they enjoy them for their own sake, or because they are endeavours used as vehicles to socialise and enjoy others’ company, or because a shared social belief exists and is cultivated such that doing such and such a thing confers social status.
There is actually a big leap in logic you’re doing here that it seems you are naive to. The world looks the way it does today because human societies, businesses and individuals are fundamentally in competition with one another for scarce resources, and having more resources leads to more capacity to survive, so there is always an incentive to acquire more. If you can no longer compete, you can and will be exploited. You don’t have to look very hard, far or back in time to realize that this is what society looks like. If everyone is incapable of competing except those who can afford to run a datacenter, that will not end up in socialist utopia.
"And maybe I could have tried to gain that respect in a different way, such as thinking very hard about an area of mathematics until I was able to demonstrate to others just how well I understood it. But I’m not sure how motivating that would have been for me. I very much hope that there is a pool of young people for whom it will be a powerful motivation, because I think the survival of a human mathematical tradition may well depend on it. [...]
Thus, the primary risk, as I see it, is that a lot of people who would have done a PhD in mathematics and gone on to become custodians of the mathematical tradition will no longer wish to do so. Those of us who have PhD students, including me, need to try as hard as we can to come up with imaginative ways for them to use their time productively (in consultation with the students themselves, obviously)."
When I read this I'm trmpted to read "imaginary" instead of imaginative - that is: in the sense lacanian psychoanalysis uses the term imaginary in contrast to symbolic - the latter of which would mean that it's having consequences within the symbolic social order. From their own, quite selfhonest evaluation the author assumes that without those they would most likely not have persued the mathematical profession. Which also relates to:
"A related risk is that the perception among policy-makers will be that mathematicians are no longer needed and that funding will become much harder to come by: we urgently need to come up with good ways of explaining the value of having a large pool of human mathematical experts, even if it is no longer part of their role to find new proofs of theorems."
Note that there isn't any attempt to establish a possible horizon as to how that coule happen.
It seems to me that the end of the article has a strong tendency to a somewhat stoic attitude of one might phrase as: it is going to happen anyways - the systemic context in which these corporations act makes it inevitable ("However much we might regret that, there is no chance that the impact of such models on mathematics will persuade AI companies to stop their release, though perhaps concerns about safety will lead to some delay and give us a bit more time to work out how to adapt. Assuming that they are released, there will be a flood of new results, whether we like it or not, and it will no longer be the AI companies producing them, though perhaps the pattern will continue that the AI companies will have access to more powerful models and so will obtain more than their fair share of headline results.")
- which makes me kind of wonder if it is not some sort of cognitive dissonance within the authors view of the situation to not also think 'it's not going to happen' in regard to their stated requirements (students that don't need to be motivated by a desire to be symbolically valuated as explorers of the mathematical frontier, and policy makers that acknowledge the value of funding the social "production" of human mathematical experts /enable such a community through funding).
So basically they see the same problems as the authors of the letter (which they also state in their letter - their should be no room for a misrepresentation of that fact: "I felt that I could not sign the letter, despite agreeing with much of what it said. Instead, it seemed better to do what I did with the Leiden Declaration and set out my own position in a blog post. But it should be understood that by doing that I am not setting myself up as a member of some opposing camp: indeed one of my worries at the moment is that the mathematical community might become bitterly divided, something I would very much like to avoid.")
So what stays is mostly their disagreement on that conceptual understanding is more important than the solving of problems for all mathematicians. - which kind of makes the problemfield of ai in mathematics somehow more urgent, as far as I have thought it through. And I'm not really convinced that the displacement of the problem into some sort of pedagogy (and it should be appreciated that the author implicate themselves in the responsibility to establish it) instead of finding solutions in the realm of policy and regulation. Seems realistic though, that they see that as an effort unlikely to succeed in a meaningful way.
Can someone argue against that reading? Am I missing something? My conclusion as such is that not only are they not opposing the authors of the fields medalist letter, but also that their evaluation of the situation is much more dire without them giving in to resignation.
> Here, we don’t need a human understanding of mathematics to give people a perfect standard of living. We also don’t need humans involved with anything else.
> Everything therefore becomes a hobby or a game. People do things because they enjoy them for their own sake, or because they are endeavours used as vehicles to socialise and enjoy others’ company, or because a shared social belief exists and is cultivated such that doing such and such a thing confers social status.
That's true only if you manage to implement communism.
If the economy remains capitalist, it means you'll suffer. There's no pleasant future of self-driven hobbies when you've got nothing to offer the capitalists, so they have no reason to give you any money. You'll have to work hard to scrape by on scraps and meager handouts to merely survive.
And in an odd way, I wouldn't be surprised if society becomes essentially communist for the nepo babies of the wealthy; after a long, slow holocaust of the now-unnecessary working classes, the only people left will be people so rich money doesn't matter. Under capitalism, the only people who are permitted comfort without work are the wealthy.
I'm surprised there's no actual commie coming out and claiming the end of capitalism is near. (except maybe me in my personal socials, only larping as a hobby)
I'm toying with the idea that until people realize capitalism is based on an increasingly invalid assumption that "things are scarce", the capitalist-ish economical system will eventually realize that the only scarce things are new, fun and creative ideas, and slowly value them more and more, which kind of might work out if nothing drastic happens between the times of transition.
> ...the capitalist-ish economical system will eventually realize that the only scarce things are new, fun and creative ideas, and slowly value them more and more, which kind of might work out if nothing drastic happens between the times of transition.
The problem (for most of us) is "new, fun and creative ideas" are pretty rare. If a worker has to be a font of them to eat in the new world, not many workers will be eating.
I cook because I like to tinker, understand how variation in recipes affect flavor, and occasionally stumble upon something novel and tasty. The journey is most important but the goal is nice.
My wife cooks to produce a meal and feed our family. The journey is a necessary evil to achieve a goal.
We are aware of this difference in style and have learned to appreciate what each has to offer. At the same time, we sometimes annoy each other in the kitchen.
I thought one of the implicit points of the open letter was that unsolved problems are not something that falls out of the sky, they are a curated resource that people have spent time on and shared for the benefit of like-minded peers and humanity as a whole. And the AI companies treat them like they treat absolutely everything else: natural resources, literature, art, code etc. as something to be chucked into the ravening maw and pooped out the back as profit. They don't care if mathematics advances, they don't care if they strip-mine the available problems and damage the field. In fact, as with programming I think they see that as in their long-term interest - soon there will be no intelligence or creativity but the one that Sam Altman bills you for.
Ok, so unresolved math problems are often something people discover while trying to solve a different math problem.
However, math problems are really there to solve a real world problem. We have unlimited real world problems no matter how smart AI gets. Therefore, we will always have unresolved math problems.
> math problems are really there to solve a real world problem
I think this is totally wrong. Math problems are almost by definition problems with a particular theory. That theory might be inspired by the real world, but the problem itself is purely theoretical. I can't think of any theoretical problems like this that actually support a practical problem, as opposed to being an internal knot in the theory that indicates something is wrong with it. Not to say that cannot happen - certain optimization problems were historically actually hard to solve and solving them helped us to genuinely optimize a real thing (rather than just explain why the answer we already had was correct, which is much more common). In particular, none of the millennium problems have anything to do with a "real" problem, including the Navier Stokes one.
As an aside, it's amusing that this conversation is a re-statement of a main point in TFA:
> However, math problems are really there to solve a real world problem.
vs
> That theory might be inspired by the real world, but the problem itself is purely theoretical.
From TFA:
> In my essay The Two Cultures of Mathematics a quarter of a century ago, and which can be summarized by saying that there is a spectrum of attitudes in mathematics to the relationship between problem-solving and conceptual understanding.
The author thinks this letter was choosing only one of them as the "right" approach whereas the better stance is "porque no los dos?"
Agreed, though for the hn audience I want to advocate a bit for the utility of mathematics. The development of applicable mathematics has often not been through the direct means of solving an open problem. It has however often depended on theory which was developed for the purpose of human understanding. It is difficult to pull concepts out of the aether on demand, but when there is a general milieu of human understanding economic applications can be developed in post.
I have in mind GPS, cryptography, numerical fluid simulation, lasers, etc…
Did the theoretical math lead to the invention of GPS, cryptography, lasers, etc? Or did we encounter a real physical problem, then we found that someone had done some theoretical math before that would be useful for this application? If we run into a real physical problem today, can we just have AI invent the math on the spot to solve the problem without a human having done the theoretical math in the past?
You will find they were inspired by the NP-hard knapsack problem, and inspired a bunch of later research that led to RSA.
I think the tapestry of history would suggest the answer to the question "is math responsible for this invention" a lot more complicated than it appears. For lasers, Einstein proposed the idea based on purely theoretical physics, and it was made possible in 1960. Is that "theoretical math leading to the invention of lasers"? Surely he was at least relying on a lot of additional theoretical work for that. On the other hand, much theoretical that came out of Bell Labs were responses to needs for better vacuum tube technology, better amplifiers, etc., which were a deep collaboration between theory, practice, and tradesman with a strong intuition for how to build with various materials and at varying scales.
My point is that when the consumer application became apparent we already had the required concepts to build the technology on top of. In mathematics it still hasn’t happened that an LLM system has invented a conceptual framework. In most if not of the major AI announcements they’ve worked within known frameworks and assembled ideas across frameworks.
Moreover, it’s not clear that if (and when as I believe) they do, creating technologies with no human understanding of the framework is possible or desirable.
Why wouldn't it be desirable? Is knowledge beyond that a child can understand undesirable because the child can't understand it? I think not, same with anything AI figures out that we can't easily understand ourselves. If GPT-10 Quasar grinds tokens out for 6 months and out pops a warp drive, and even it's executive summary is difficult for anyone to understand, do we get out the pitchforks and burn the data centers or do we go "Sweet, we've got warp drives!"
It might. It might not though. Would a 1300s superintelligence advocate for heliocentricism in the face of all institutional players advocating for geocentrism, or would it create the most refined epicycle model imaginable? I’d guess the latter.
>If we run into a real physical problem today, can we just have AI invent the math on the spot to solve the problem without a human having done the theoretical math in the past?
This depends on unanswered questions on what math actually is and it's causal connectivity.
Imagine we have problem A that needs to connect to math solution Z.
The problem is the A -> Z route can only occur in polynomial time in which you need to burn the visible universe to solve. So, that itself is not workable.
As you look at the problem space of A there are a potentially infinite number of paths you could take in the problem topology so again you'd have to brute force the path... mostly unworkable on a lot of problems.
The breakthroughs tend to occur when somewhere in between A and Z there is another mathematical construct M that can link them together. M was very likely discovered something so completely and wildly different you would never link them by brute force. By M existing you narrow the problem space to NP time. M might have sat in the toolbox 100 years unused before that point.
If we are talking about pure/theoretical mathematics, then the vast majority of the problems people pose and solve have at best tangential relationship with applications, and a big part even is only related to other math problems. Of course quite a bit of mathematics historically emerged as this kind of intellectual endeavour to find applications later, but there is neither a way to predict which ones are that and how to get them, nor is there indication of this thing going on to the same proportion nowadays as it was, considering the mathematical production is much higher. In mathematics human mathematicians have to decide which problems matter, it does not come from somewhere.
Solving "real" problems in theoretical mathematics (as in problems directly related to applications) is a very small proportion compared to the vast majority of math work that does not. So if we are discussing about the future of mathematics as a field, we have to understand what the field of theoretical mathematics is actually about.
Technological progress is not bottlenecked by most of the millennium prize problems or erdos problems per se, or most of the rest open problems in theoretical math, ie that merely knowing the solution of them will help applications in some manner. I doubt the solution of such problems has any direct effect on technology progress at all, at least in any deterministic, foreseeable manner.
In fact, the relationship between theoretical mathematics and "real physical problems" is bidirectional, as in "real physical problems" informs to some degree some problems that may be interesting to research on in theoretical math, and at the same time pure mathematical research that is developed completely independent may find applications at some point. And even theoretical mathematicians working close to applications are mostly dealing with problems not directly addressing applications. Eg maybe they study properties of a certain function that arises often in application without any view to solving a specific "real physical problem" with it, and somebody after may find that useful for some application after some point, but that could be one out of 50 papers (random number) and it is hard to predict that. There is of course some work more related to specific real problems, but that's most often not what theoretical math is about, and not what these new developments with erdos problems, navier stokes etc are about.
So what could (in a chaotic sense) have effect in application is mathematical theories developed along the way of solving these pure math problems, which brings us back to the question of what happens if we remove this friction and if AI can do more than construct examples and proofs, ie actually build theories (autonomously or humans+AI). If anything, it is through building theories that mathematical progress germinates applied sciences, as this is the process that develops mathematical tools that can be taken up later, including whole mathematical fields. Building mathematical theories is a heavily social process, and it is the community that basically decides which directions are important to follow.
Technological progress is bottlenecked by the fact that there are many mathematical problems for which currently there are no known practical methods of solution.
Because even with supercomputers the equations that describe many physical systems cannot be solved, research and development is still based on a lot of empirical methods, i.e. things must be physically built and measured, because mathematical computations cannot predict their properties with sufficient accuracy.
So if some miraculous algorithms would be discovered for the approximate solution of the systems of equations that are insoluble for now, that could accelerate technological progress a lot in certain domains, especially for the discovery of new materials or chemical substances with desirable properties.
AI can also introduce its own "bad friction", or it (ppl?) can bypass good friction without necessarily directly be removed by ai, eg bikeshedding, slowly pivoting towards directions and problems that ai is better in tackling, because that can produce these accelerated results vs fields and problems that ai may not be able tackle as well and thus the output there is poor, demotivating people from following these fields and missing important insights from them. Of course this could have the opposite effect, depending on which direction the whole hype can go, or not happen at all if ai will be able to tackle everything equally well.
>Humans only invest in solving problems that matter one way or another.
Fermat's Last Theorem was one of the most famous open problems in math for centuries, and it has no direct applicability to any tangible problems here in the physical world.
Oh some few. No right triangle with rational sides has area equal to a perfect square depends on N=4 for instance.
And it can be used to form other theorems that are terribly actionable. Every elliptical curve over Q is modular, which has consequences throughout number theory.
But yes, none of those are very tangible, until applied to problem solutions that are tangible.
Not really. I can't imagine a realistic solution that would affect, say, how we actually model a real fluid. Hypothetically we could find out that a whole class of real fluids are not modelled by Navier-Stokes at all, but I don't think that's remotely likely, nobody familiar with the problem expects it.
> However, math problems are really there to solve a real world problem.
this is ABSOLUTELY not how actual mathematicians see their field. A problem in mathematics is just that: its interest to a pure mathematician is not related to any applications in other disciplines.
I don't really understand what makes a mathematical problem "interesting" because of my bias as an engineer. Nothing is interesting to me unless I can use it to solve a "real world problem". But, I'm willing to concede that "solving real world problems" is really not how mathematics advances.
Things like complex numbers or quaternions were often thought about way outside of the context of their modern applications in physics and engineering. When Hamilton thought about quaternions I really doubt he cared that it would make some programmer's life easier 200 years later:
> Every morning in the early part of October 1843, on my coming down to breakfast,
> your brother William Edwin and yourself used to ask me:
> "Well, Papa, can you multiply triples?"
> Whereto I was always obliged to reply, with a sad shake of the head,
> "No, I can only add and subtract them." [1]
If we go back further, Pythagoreans weren't trying to solve "real problems" either, they were like a weird religious cult.
My point is, the practice of "real" mathematics is really something that odd people feel driven to do, not unlike painting or playing an instrument. All the applied stuff is just a byproduct (not unlike ad billboards or elevator music).
> this is ABSOLUTELY not how actual mathematicians see their field
While this might be true, I think this is the big pivot that will need to happen. Math, as a human endeavor, will all be applied. We will use LLMs to do the math and discover the math, and humans will apply it to whatever problem they are working on (likely using another LLM to integrate it).
Yes, and here towards the bottom the author gets to the reason he didn’t sign with the other medalists:
> I felt that there was nothing to be gained from criticizing AI companies for generating too many solutions too quickly.
> Under the circumstances, I think the best we can do is recognise the changes that are coming and try to work out the least unsatisfactory way of dealing with them.
Basically let’s make it a short-term problem and deal with it. Groups of people can deal with short term emergencies. Don’t turn it into a structural issue.
And in my view what’s the alternative in the letter exactly? The tools exist. Is there going to be drama every time somebody decides to use them?
The tools exist, so let’s try to figure out as humans the best way to use them to promote humanity, and let’s advocate against ways of using them which are a detriment to humanity, which is exactly the charge the letter makes. There are cultural norms around the use of every technology.
Well I think in response to 'what are you going to do', what people are probably going to do is stop sharing on-going work, stop bothering to curate problems that are just going to inflate someone's IPO valuation, basically accelerating the tragedy of the commons that the AI companies are driving.
Seems legit. I speculate their are emergent mechanisms for the development of memory that are not dependent on what ever mechanism is behind the "improve $model for 'everyone'"*
Is someone knowlegeable on research that engages the question on the development of something that could be considered as some emergent mechanism of memory, that is independent of instances and their contextwindow an specifically also independent of the use of conversations for trainingsdata?
*(This is regarding the value of selfhosted models - maybe small selforganisations that share ressources to do though to do so? Generally the value of machine learning seems to be to big to reject)
> With that interpretation, the issue becomes slightly different: is it more important that the collective understanding of the mathematical community should be as advanced as possible or that there should be answers to as many problems as possible? Or are those two aims valuable in different ways, so that there is no point in declaring one of them more important? Or are they so inextricably linked that it makes no sense to argue that one is more important than the other? And when we say “important”, for whom are we saying it is important: for mathematicians, or for society as a whole?
This is easy to me. Truth should be the North Star. If there is a fundamental truth that can be found via mathematics, then the shortest route to that truth should be preferred. While LLMs are definitely capable of solving problems in search of truth, I agree with Tao that instant "true/false" results threaten to short-circuit the traditional avenues we have used to escape local minima in the search for truth. Their products may be the junk food that provides immediate satiation in exchange for long-term health. Perhaps it's wrong, though.
What do you mean by "fundamental truth"? If LLMs produce a collection of proved facts this doesn't sound like what I would call fundamental. It may be the case that there is no such thing as "fundamental truth", that the world is just a blizzard of facts, but in that case we would need to give up on using it as a guiding star.
I think it is easy to just roll of a local maximum, however, you may get stuck in a local minimum.
I kid, of course, but I do wonder where the use of local "maximum" comes from, what is maximum there? Why do you not see this as a landscape of hills and valleys where marbles with certain energies may indeed get stuck in deep enough holes... Of course, I just assume and picture gravity pointing down in that landscape, but hey. I'm human, I feel it is expected of me.
as a society of researchers we've tended to cultivate pretty effective strategies for escaping local maxima. I think of it like ants, where you can see if you place an obstacle in between their nest and a foot source, they develop a path that loops around it. if you remove the obstacle, for some time they continue to follow the old looped path. However, some ants deviate and go around at random, exploring. eventually by chance one happens to find a quicker route. he gets a couple of his friends to follow him, by pheremone, and over time more and more take the quicker route, and they end up abandoning the old route
It works this way with research, with most following the current trends, and some curious souls searching around for other ideas, be they contrarians, dreamers, or just convinced of some strange truth. But if we're right, signs tend to slowly begin to point their way, and we can shift the whole hulking edifice of science towards their point of view.
The problem of llms is that while they may be able to find a shorter route, we can't follow them unless we understand the route. So the forces that slowly begin to change everyone's behavior are lost
The letter is not incompatible with “pro AI in math” unless one thinks arguing against extreme behavior such as corporations using millions of dollars to scoop results makes one “anti AI”, which is not a reasonable stance in my opinion.
> AI offers the potential of enhancing and accelerating genuine mathematical study and understanding. Mathematics as a profession will need to adapt to these changes in several ways. However, whether these changes ultimately benefit the field or have a destructive effect will in large part be determined by the decisions of the humans in control of this new technology.
It is getting a lot harder for those people to justify using OpenAI to assist such endeavours. Afterall, OpenAI might just front-run you if they hear a rumor you solved some marquee problem that they can brag about in PR campaigns.
This isn’t true, as there are plenty of things proven beyond reach.
And plenty of things, eventually solvable, can create major problems that could both be avoided and the problem solved by taking a much better path.
Having technology and the ability to safely and sanely use the technology needs to progress together at a similar rate. The failure to do this is even a reasonable and common solution to the Great Filter. Jared Diamonds book “Collapse” has ample examples of cultures that wiped themselves completely out via not having this balance, so it’s not simply a theory.
This pattern of argument keeps repeating in every place.
Pro tech people: technology removes bottlenecks. Sometimes we use those bottlenecks as a side effect to build muscle and so on. But removing bottlenecks gives us much higher degrees of freedom. It is up to us to coordinate and make use of the technology.
Anti tech people: bottlenecks are fundamentally useful. They should remain and technology shouldn't remove those so easily. Humans cannot coordinate as well when the bottlenecks are removed, so lets not remove them so quickly.
>It is up to us to coordinate and make use of the technology.
1) Coordination is hard, and 2) "us" is a hopelessly nebulous term that appears inclusive but is almost always exclusive.
I think people would have said the creation of social media platforms like Facebook was neither good or bad, but rather it was "up to us to coordinate and make use of".
But did our society really have a say over how Facebook and other social media sites were able to embed themselves in our everyday lives? I would argue the answer is no.
I don’t think the letter is even anti-tech progress. I also don’t think the tech companies are primarily pro-math progress (not that I think you think that). It’s primarily “anti-unnecessarily-destroy-the-human-systems-of-mathematics-just-for-benchmarks-and-marketing”
> … the push by AI companies to solve mathematical problems as a benchmark is detrimental to the science of mathematics, and to the mathematical community. The goals of the AI companies and the goals of the mathematical community are severely misaligned.
Its not a conspiracy. Its 25 fields medalists who think exactly like how I put it. Ideally, they can just take whatever the technology gives as soon as possible and use it. They don't want it because they don't think the community can rearrange and coordinate such that they can make use of the new found degrees of freedom.
That's literally all there is to it - they don't believe in the rearrangement.
Counterpoint: I'm not anti tech at all. In fact, I sell an AI harness for legal.
I think you've set up a false dichotomy. I'd propose to you the middle ground that a lot of us are concerned that VC-backed AI slop is "solving" problems in indigestible ways that hollow out the core. This applies in OSS as well as mathematics.
Please help me understand this and I'm asking this in good faith.
Why can't OpenAI publish whatever it wants. And the math community can use it or not use it. Fundamentally OpenAI's solutions are high signal - they are incentivised to not deliberately mislead people. Let the individuals in math community choose to read it or understand it? If OpenAI wants to publish something, let them do it in the current channels using peer review using whatever time is required.
What's wrong with this? The math community thinks this will destroy previously unwritten ways of prestige allocation and remove incentives that used to exist. I say that the community can rearrange and allocate prestige and time in different ways to maximally use the technology.
They can use the new proofs as foundations for future proofs.
But many folks just won't be motivated to attack or help digest solved problems because there's less extrinsic value in doing so. Tao and others argue that it's this human effort that finds human-relatable abstractions which spurn further investigation. Take the humans out of the loop, and they'll stay there, is the argument as I understand it.
I read this multiple times and also recollected the original letter. You can’t really blame me for thinking this is a straaaange request.
“Don’t help me solve my problems because it removes the incentive to be in this field” is how I hear it. Honestly.
I would say the incentives HAVE to change because of new found capabilities.
Imagine accountants asking companies to reconsider producing calculators because we used to value accountants for how well they did arithmetic!!
Edit: my main point is that the math community has full agency to do what it wants with new found tech. Instead, asking to change external entities like OpenAI to be careful with releases is a strange thing to do. Why not change yourself and adapt?
You're describing an improvised surgery on a living organism. Developing a complex system involving humans that is productive and doesn't collapse is extremely hard, so if it ain't broke don't fix it.
The Math community can "not use" a proof? How would that work? It's a little like coloured functions (async etc) - you have 'human proved' vs 'machine proved'?
I'm pointing out that the way Mathematics works as a discipline is that a new proof builds on existing proofs. If we have a bunch of machine-generated proofs, then a human Mathematician has to decide whether to reference any relevant machine proof that has been put out there.
If, as you suggest, human Mathematicians 'choose to ignore' a machine proof, then another human decides not to, what then? Mathematics bifurcates into 'pure human' proofs and 'mixed machine-human' or maybe 'pure machine'?
Consider that 'calculator' used to be a title for a role a human used to do. That went away, which is probably fine as there were other jobs and likely it was tedious.
Then consider that "just adapt" could be "adapt or die", and that maybe, just maybe there is no way to adapt to well-funded corporations churning out millions of proofs a minute.
I don't know, maybe AI companies have "agency" to not break everyone else's stuff, just to get more funding and a higher share price?
>Why can't OpenAI publish whatever it wants. And the math community can use it or not use it.
The "math community" is not an isolated entity that is free from the confines of society. It's made up of lots of people who coexist in a system that requires you to assert your right to live.
Furthermore, the "math community" is overwhelmingly supported by outside donations to keep it running. That's not to say people don't practice math for the fun of it, but that if you're researching problems like Navier-Stokes, you almost certainly are being paid by another party to do so. But those parties may hold new forms of technology over the professional mathematicians head in the name of "productivity", or they may even believe in light of this tech that paying a human to practice math is no longer worth it.
Therefore, mathematicians find themselves coerced by the market to adopt new tools in order to get by, even if the mathematical community largely finds it distasteful.
It feels like the scene from Blazing Saddles where Mel Brooks' character says "We've got to protect our phony-baloney jobs, gentlemen."
If the math community was previously not entirely aligned with what society was expecting, and these changes threaten that previous arrangement, that sounds like a "you" problem for math, not a problem for OpenAI.
If they can't align with society's needs and demands then some creative destruction is coming their way.
One thing I've found in my own use of AI, which Gowers touches on in his point at the end but which I think deserves more attention: AI makes some previously non-trivial tasks trivial, but that doesn't make the work itself trivial. You naturally expand the scope of what you attempt and take on harder problems than you could before. The floor rises, and so does the ceiling. The open question is whether that still holds once models can also do the harder problems, or whether choosing and framing those problems remains the human part.
My Mom was worried I wouldn't finish my thesis so instead of encouraging me she encouraged an LLM. She says now I don't have to worry about submitting a proof anymore, there is a counter-example.
This is the state of affairs today and how everyday people will talk about it.
> we urgently need to come up with good ways of explaining the value of having a large pool of human mathematical experts, even if it is no longer part of their role to find new proofs of theorems.
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the referenced letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work.
I think the author did not mention that the way humans construct the knowledge ladder requires low complexity because each step gives power to the next, but the AI with the exponential exploration can give biggers steps but then it stagnates because the next step can be beyond the exponential exploration complexity. In chess a good strategy can be the best tool, in the game of go our experience suggest the same, but it could happen that mathematical thinking requires a type of policy that could be beyond the current ideas. I can not fathom a LLM could conceive from scratch concepts like the real numbers by Dedekind.
> I can not fathom a LLM could conceive from scratch concepts like the real numbers by Dedekind.
What stops you? I can fathom it alright.
I am always suspicious of these arguments like "a machine won't do thing x which humans can". These always basically pre-suppose that humans aren't machines. If that's what you're arguing for, say it outright.
A cynical could say that AI could not interpolate the Dedekind cut but it could extrapolate to create a lot of money but just using an imaginary extra point.
The ironic part is that generating a joke like this requires jumping across three distant fields: real analysis, machine learning limits, and VC market cynicism. For an AI to discover that specific overlap through statistical search, the combinatorial space is absurdly huge. Yet a human brain connects them in a fraction of a second. This tiny joke is a micro-proof of the macro-argument: human conceptual leaps routinely bypass exponential search spaces.
Just to add that the Dedekind cut example seems to stand beyond any RL policy used in chess or go, AlphaZero or AlphaProof. In the classical RL there is an state-action space. If the solution requires jumping to a totally difference action space (that must be created) the local policy stalls. Dedekind cut is an example of a out-of-distribution state-space generation.
Solving a theorem is like climbing a new mountain. The mountain is already there, and there is a list of the hardest known mountains to climb. The point of climbing them and not just dropping with a plane on top of the peak is to help develop human climbing skills and expand our knowledge and abilities. Also, already conquered mountains are climbed all the time to test new strategies.
Now, if an LLM proves a theorem, it's like discovering a new mountain and knowing what its peak looks like. Does that mean the problem is finished? No, we still need climbers to actually do the work and advance the field with human understanding.
Why? Why should a government invest money into this? Here you see human understanding as an ends, while historically in society it has been applied as a means to ends like social power, resource accumulation, etc.
Now these means are generated. If the proof yields some improvement somewhere, it can be used and there needs to be no human in the loop
The job of a mathematician just shifts from proving to inventing new theories and finding new conjectures with the help of AI, which should be even more fun.
In my experience it's the opposite. AI tends to make interesting things boring. You spend less time building a deep understanding by doing the hard but rewarding work yourself, and you focus more on developing a more superficial understanding by studying someone else's work. There are some productivity gains, depending how well defined the tasks are and how well the ability to produce more translates to creating more value. But at the same time, an increasingly large part of the work feels like bureaucracy with no inherent value.
I'm not sure what the primary signatories want, exactly. "No mathematics" safeguards added to frontier models, like the "no cybersecurity or bio" ones that currently ship? That seems like a bleak future. Protectionism like tariffs.
> One way that might happen is that AI disrupts society so much, or even kills vast numbers of us, that the preservation of something like the current mathematical tradition ceases to be of any concern: all that will matter is the survival of the human race. But that again is a topic for a different blog post (which in fact I am in the middle of writing).
Looks like Timothy is joining Scott Aaronson [1] and other academics in viscerally feeling the AGI!
Perhaps he will follow Jacob Tsimerman and try to work on AI safety. Or alternatively lend his influence to politics. It's an interesting time for sure.
Of course. He is taking the intellectually honest position as he witnesses in just a couple years his field being overturned by machines which show no signs of slowing.
There is no reason for him to downplay current events anymore, as even his kids are asking him questions.
Do you have any thoughts on what Scott should be doing instead?
Imagine a world where mathematics is not understood by any human. Theorems and mountains of proof papers are constructed on a daily basis by automated machines at a rate far to quick for humans to understand.
These theorems DO benefit humanity but are largely unseen. You ask the LLM to make you an app. The LLM makes the app and utilizes entire languages, theories and processes made by discoveries that you as a human are not a privvy to. It all goes into the this body of knowledge only decipherable by AI.
This is the future AS long as current trendlines stay the same. As long as progress keeps going at the rate it currently is going. This is the best predictor.
Personally, and I have no evidence for this though, I think we'll hit another barrier and AI will stop making progress for about a couple decades or so. So humanity still has some time to have fun before something gets over the hump.
> At one end of the spectrum you have mathematicians who are primarily motivated by the wish to solve problems, who see conceptual understanding as a very important means to that end. At the other you have mathematicians who are primarily motivated by the wish to attain conceptual understanding, who see problem-solving as a very important means to that end.
Funny. Reminds me of programmers who like to program, and programmers who like programming because it lets them build things. The first group hates AI, the second loves it.
Yes there are really only these two strictly separated groups in the AI talking point.
Or perhaps the second group has always exploited and stolen from real open source developers? Maybe the second group is a bit dumb, just like the AI addicts? But the second group is always ready for ideological justifications for their theft.
This was also guest-posted on Tao's blog. Tao has a flood of guest posts that cope in a varying degree. Most start with empathy, move on to inevitability and emphasize human understanding.
Few of them mention research theft, none of them mentions concentration of capital and resources.
The fact that Gowers quotes Tsimerman (OpenAI employee) says it all. A couple of mathematicians are determined to bulldoze forward with AI, and I suspect Tao will also continue after the meek concern letter and the cleverly worded guest posts that are subliminal ads for AI.
I hate to say it, but if AI keeps advancing at the current rate, the justification for keeping humans in the loop will grow increasingly hard to make.
There's definitely the possibility that in just a few years, human mathematicians will largely become irrelevant in the face of extremely capable models.
I don't like it, I think there are a lot of bad side effects to it, but I think it's important to face that possibility.
Watching the discussion unfold, here is what I feel:
Before arguing whether mathematics must strictly be done by humans, there are different motivations at play. Some people love the sense of solidarity within the community that forms during the process. Those excluded from that community might resent it, while others just purely want to solve problems.
Many things are being discussed, but looking at the overarching narrative, it seems that AI's true function isn't necessarily opening new horizons of specific knowledge, but rather excelling at 'serializing' topics that have been heavily fragmented until now.
In that sense, the concern is that because AI is solving the very problems needed to cultivate mathematicians internally, the stepping stones required for human growth are disappearing.
However, on the other hand, as the world and industries become increasingly complex and hyper-specialized, you could also argue that AI is the exact tool needed to unify this fragmentation across academia and industry. It is a highly complex dilemma.
From the perspective of researchers and the mathematical community, those 'problems for growth' must remain. But conversely, AI has the distinct ability to serialize siloed disciplines. Usually, when you go to graduate school, you often hear professors say that even within the exact same major, they cannot understand each other if their sub-specialties differ.
[I have not read Gower's article. It's only that your response is prompting me to share what i've been thinking recently]
>the stepping stones required for human growth are disappearing.
Actually only in an institutional sense, imho. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but reddit.com/r/math* or even mathstackexchange will be so back with users analyzing and distilling proofs with AI. Maybe in 5 years (when lean attains 10% popularity of rust, and/or gpt7 level models cost ~USD5 on average, per month, inflation adjusted or not) this types of submissions will make those sites as fun/educational as mathoverflow [has always been for me]. One dreams that by that time openAI and Anthropic will have taken down your ethno-cultural "compatriot" Masayoshi with them.. (I prefer his brother whom he did not regret giving a physical beating to. Only purely on principle) so that they can't acquire these sites
Such forums can then replace math grad school, if the profs/alpoges who drop by get into the habit of constructive criticism (as they do on mathSE already). It's already starting, I see personally interesting 1 AI-aided submissions every 1.5-3 weeks starting 2 months ago
It would be like rust discussions on HN for you I bet.
This seems unlikely when s/math/physics/, or s/Reddit/HN/ because HN hates AI-aided posts so ideologically (sorry mods, I don't mean you guys). MO is also not as welcoming to outsiders/lay, congruent to academia (only online) PhysicsSE/overflow had become dumb and arrogant last decade
HN, even pg seem anti-intellectual in effect tbh whenever they sneer at AI _writing_ (again sorry mods, you will figure this out soon I believe, do you or do you not want HN to end up as a reservation for meatbrains), though I mostly am on their coder side with regards to this fields medallist letter
The AI debate is, in fact, somewhat ideological. The problem is that in the process, whether advocating for it or pushing for progress, there is a failure to face its limitations directly. In other words, it is emotional. Because AI's mere existence is a threat to knowledge workers, much like machines were a threat to blue-collar workers. That is, if the value of intellectual labor drops, it damages the value of the labor force through which workers earn capital in a capitalist system.
I have tried solving a few math problems with AI (they were Erdős problems), but because I know absolutely nothing about that math, I couldn't just take the AI's word for it, so I am actually a bit skeptical. A problem arises where you arrive at the answer without actually understanding it.
It's not that AI is bad. The problem is that AI destroys the equilibrium between the knowledge I have and the knowledge I lack. That boundary collapses, making it feel as if I can know everything.
Actually, academia is fundamentally about mental models. It's a kind of internal worldview, and that worldview is shared. When you actually listen to the thoughts of scholars and professors, there are subtly different aspects. That forms the person's worldview... and I get the feeling that sharing it is what constitutes intellectual activity.
However, as you mentioned, unlike academics like yourself, academia and knowledge communities seem disconnected to someone like me (meaning they lack accessibility). Even if I were to make a discovery, it would probably be hard for me to become recognized, and I do think AI could actually play a role in opening up those closed communities.
But apart from that, I find it hard to say that this only has positive aspects.
I followed Karpathy's research from start to finish to build a small LLM like nanoGPT on my own, and people say that because of the positive transfer that comes from feeding diverse data through modern LLM multimodal encoders, there will be new discoveries. But in reality, the types of problems AI excels at are generally those that humans have found but overlooked.
In my opinion, rather than being a knowledge machine, LLMs (or AI) make me feel that what we call "intellectual activity" is closer to a kind of serialization work. A method of stacking things up one by one in sequence, so to speak? After all, the actual operating principle of an LLM proceeds according to the probability of the token coming in the next sequence.
In other words, I think the serialization method of our knowledge activities is similar to how LLMs operate, but I also think a different kind of thinking might be necessary. I am not that smart, and I have never interacted with scholars... (As you know, I am a subcontract worker. Of course, I have been hired by startups run by professors in my country, but it's not like I modeled that intellectual design myself.)
On the contrary, I feel that the evolutionary approach will slow down after GPT 6 Astra. They can continue to increase the size, but the issue lies in the cost-effectiveness of token costs.
Anyway, I agree with most of what you said in your discussion, but rather than anti-intellectualism, I consider this a direct threat to survival.
In value terms, the question becomes: who has the right to translate their money into what sorts of meaning? Who controls the medium through which, and the institutions through which, our actions become meaningful to ourselves, by the very act of being publicly recognized in some kind of public arena? It seems to me that while if one is trying to understand the strategies by which people can move back and forth between “fields”, and especially, by which some are excluded from them, Bourdieu’s models are pretty much indispensable, THEY DO LITTLE to tell us why anyone wishes to enter certain fields to begin with.
The evolution of fields, of domains of enquiries. AI-independent
First of all, I take it for granted there is really no such thing as “intelligence”
Writing like this from 2005, feels like a personal bedtime Bible for AI age
When the newfangled electronic calculators came along, many eminent engineers, and teachers of engineering, objected to them displacing the slide rule.
For those of you who haver never slid a slide rule, here's the part that makes this anecdote make sense: they're a mechanical logarithm, this allows one to do multiplication as addition, but there's a catch: you have to know the "characteristic", that is, the order of magnitude of the result. The slide rule won't tell you that.
They argued that this requirement leads to an intuitive grasp of magnitudes, which is of real benefit to the discipline.
And they were correct. However, engineering is, by all appearances, doing just fine.
Where they erred, and it was a natural mistake to make, is in assuming that pedagogy must recapitulate phylogeny. That engineers should start with the slide rule, just like the profession did, and then graduate to the calculator, just like their professors did.
But this is wrong. It makes the slide rule an impediment: a known-to-be-obsolete object, standing between the student and graduating to the device he or she knows, full well, is what will be used for the rest of his or her career.
Instead, teach the concepts and the foundation with the modern tools. Then, senior year, in addition to the thesis project, teach "OG" engineering: slide rules, graph paper, mechanical pencils. Along with the thesis, which should stretch all the skills already mastered to their limit, require a feat of engineering which is within the student's capability, but: no CAD, no calculators.
This would actually work. This gives them an opportunity to find out what they're missing, build some of that order-of-magnitude intuition, really solidify what a "sketch" in CAD is all about, all of it: and understand that any force multiplier can be a crutch, if you let it.
I've been just delighted with what I can accomplish in "centaur mode" with LLM agent assistance. I've made real progress on longstanding research topics. But to do so, it's essential to never let them be a substitute for one's own understanding. They turn out to be really good at explaining difficult passages in research papers!
My gloss on what's happened with LLMs in mathematics (understand, I am not a mathematician), is that we're discovering that solving conjectures is just not that important. Not the first time this has happened: simplifying and manipulating algebraic equations was very important, and then, it wasn't.
Making conjectures, that's where the action is. Always has been. No one thinks that solving an Erdős conjecture puts one in the same rank as Erdős Pal, because it doesn't.
When the first mainframe computers came along, there was a brief flurry of conjectures, some of them longstanding, which were either proven or disproven by brute exhaustive search. What's happening now is different in magnitude, and even in kind: but more in magnitude than in kind.
It wouldn't be fitting to be glib about the disruptive effect this is having, and perhaps (although I don't think so) we'll cross some threshold at which it doesn't even make sense to contemplate humans doing authentic intellectual labor. That would be bad. If you think that's on the horizon, you're right to be upset about it; I don't, but I won't try and persuade you otherwise, because the point is far from obvious, and both of us are predicting the future, which is known to be a risky business.
The "publish or perish problem" which this new development surfaces is not new to this development. The entire concept is well past its sell-by date, and while mathematics is perhaps the intellectual pursuit least corrupted by the dog-and-pony show, it is and has been undignified, inhumane, and always to some degree dishonest. Time to come up with something better.
The problem with the Fields medallists petition was that its central argument relied on reiterating a very fashionable, neoliberal-academic trope, that science as a whole is "done by a culture of experts", implying that there is no value or even science existentially outside of "the social practices of science". It is a predictable extension of centrist-pseudoleft political ideologies (~ ivory tower belief system) which Thomas Piketty for instance has conceptualized as the Brahmin left. Indeed the whole AI/ASI/AGI issue is hugely political and it cannot be dismissed and analyzed as a neutral topic in isolation from people's political premises.
That said, I think there is an articulable concern about the recent AI events as it may threaten human's autonomy and relation to science and mathematics. Just not one premised on that. What's interesting is seeing different academics having predictable reactions, for example Sabine Hossenfelder is more politically libertarian so in this case she said DGAF about human mathematicians at all. Scott Aaronson is another interesting example, he wrote a blog post a couple days ago as well.
This is pretty disappointing I have to say. The letter actually has a “pro AI” stance (see quote below), and Gowers’ apparent reason for not signing it is so subtle (not wanting to offend people whose goal in mathematics is not understanding) that I can’t help but view this as being more about optics than its actual content; i.e. he seems to be cleverer than I am in recognizing most people will not see the letter as a push to use AI in ways which are healthier for human flourishing but as advocating for one of two sides in a highly artificial binary (“pro AI” or “anti AI”). Gowers draws a distinction without a difference here and should have just signed the letter.
> AI offers the potential of enhancing and accelerating genuine mathematical study and understanding. Mathematics as a profession will need to adapt to these changes in several ways. However, whether these changes ultimately benefit the field or have a destructive effect will in large part be determined by the decisions of the humans in control of this new technology.
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the Fields medallists’ letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work under these circumstances.
imagine yourself living in the 1700s. how would you justify Newton and Leibniz's work on calculus?
all maritime engineering and trade was done with geometry and arithmetic at the time. there were no practical applications, not for likely at least a century until hydrodynamics were incorporated into shipbuilding
now look at today. how many of our modern technologies rely on the field having been birthed? that could only exist because of even further decades-worth of antecedent refinements, extrapolations, applications that had, at their time, no direct utilitarian cause?
there's no KPI to be derived from any academic field of study at the bleeding edge of theory. theoretical underpinnings lead to practical applications much further down the line after many paradigm shifts
semiotics and cultural capital as theoretical concepts is another example - at the time they were purely seen as navel-gazey literary theory work. these days, half a century later, they're in wide use (for better or worse) in marketing and advertising - they birthed the whole concept of 'branding'
not everything needs immediate, quantifiable justification. to believe it does indicates a need for a period of self-reflection, to figure out how and when you became so heavily influenced by the MBA-brained propaganda that the world should revolve around the quarter-by-quarter creation of capital
Countless other mathematical curiosities were developed in the 1700s -- and forgotten. Calculus just happens to be the one that found practical applications later, so that's the one that's well known today.
It's difficult to draw the conclusion that "every possible branch of learning ought to be funded" by appealing to "later practical value" based on this cherrypicked example.
On the other hand, clearly _some_ novel theoretical work with no apparent immediate value _does_ yield real world benefit later.
Since we lack the resources to fund every PhD with a crazy theory on what the next new subfield ought to be, how do we decide?
Seems like AI could help massively there, by removing a huge bottleneck around technical elaboration and application seeking.
1. You may not agree, but some people will argue that knowledge is worth accumulating in itself. We fund astronomy well beyond the solar system despite there being no real prospect of practical applications.
2. The value of calculus justifies the cost of all the curiosities. The economic benefits of funding lots of "curiosities" was well worth the few that were useful.
There are a lot of immediate practical benefits to learning more about the physics and chemistry of the universe beyond our solar system.
Calculus (e.g. differentiation), for example, is mind-blowing when taking it seriously, and not only useful.
The idea of "speed at an infinitely short moment", for example, is philosophy!
It just so happens that certain kinds of mathematics are unreasonably effective in drawing parallels to the physical world, but as far as mathematicians are concerned those mathematics are neither better nor worse than those that do not correspond to anything tangible.
On how to select what to fund in the future: find the brightest minds, fund whatever they want to do. That tends to work out in aggregate
Are you proposing that humanity should rely on AI to determine the fields of study that should be perused and those that should be defunded?
Why don't you first come up with an AI that can predict if the stock market will go up or down tomorrow, with 99.999% accuracy. Should be really simple as it only needs to answer what will happen tomorrow.
After that, come up with the AI that will predict how actions or non-actions today may affect outcomes 100 years into the future.
The work that Newton and Leibniz did was in formalizing it and coming up with the notation that would end up being more widely accepted and applicable. It's very likely that the techniques would have been developed later to solve a practical problem.
We have natural experiments of this: retirees, both early and otherwise. Do retirees during the first five years of their retirement "find productive work voluntarily" (your choice of words, not mine) in quantities that are comparable to what they did at work during the five years prior to their retirement? Not exceptional individuals, but on average.
I retired circa five years ago and spend my time doing stuff like walking the dog, drinking coffee and reading books, much like other retirees. My productivity is as close to zero as I can muster, and it is the rule, not the exception.
Really? Like what?
edit: this is either an unfalsifiable claim, because by "forgotten" you meant here is no extant knowledge or remaining record of it, or it's almost certainly nonsense and anything you could cite would be foundational to some area of modern mathematics, even if as a disproven counter theory.
Survivorship bias is literally just how invention happens.
No one strikes gold on the first swing.
The direct use of that math to biuld better weapons. That math was/is essential to the development of modern artillery. The first tasks assigned most early computers were to calculate ballistic trajectories, and also tide tables which also have immense military applications. Math was and is a weapon.
How can we hope to quantity the expenditure on math we've collectively forgotten? It's unknowable by definition. The only reasonable thing to do is to determine the value added after the expense paid. Even in a world where calculus is the only thing that we took away from the math of 1700s my guess is that this is still an economically beneficial calculation.
It's not "forgotten" in the technical sense that one _can_ still go dig into the dusty archives of any number of old university libraries, and review learned journals, diaries, commonplace books, personal correspondence, and so on from the 1700s that describe the mathematical work of the day in detail.
You can then systematically review that work, and test whether the claim that "nearly all mathematical output of the 18th century has been generally forgotten and never found any use."
I hypothesize that this experiment will show that nearly all of the mathematical output of the time long ago fell into oblivion. This is a falsifiable claim.
You redefine "forgot" to make it falsiable, but also neglect that you need to refute that some "forgotten" work didn't contribute to new work down the line.
As is almost all of human endeavor.
Today, science funding comes out of the tax collected from everyone. The taxpayers want an explanation for how their money is spent. It could be, of course, vanity, just like it was before (taxpayer money is spent on sporting events, for example because people root for the athletes who represent them)... but, maybe there's a better way?
Different academic disciplines are very different, and most don't engage in the same kind of black-and-white problem solving that mathematicians do, where you either have solved a problem or you haven't.
But all insist that you engage in some sort of outwardly visible production in your field: books, articles, conference presentations, public lectures, exhibitions, performances, something.
We haven't yet figured out what that should be, but I presume that everyone would agree that this should continue. As one possible model, check out this blog post of Terry Tao's, where he gives his own perspective on the recently proved Jacobian conjecture.
https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/07/21/a-digestion-of-the...
When computers can solve the underlying actual problem, this sort of work seems likely to rise in value, and be something which a greater number of mathematicians engage in.
Consider the "Jacobian conjecture counterexample": the work doesn't simply end once Terence Tao explains the computer-generated proof to a wider specialist audience.
1. I assume that the counterexample will give rise to a host of new questions, each of which will in turn need to be resolved. In the long run, the process of formulating questions might also be automated by AI - but likely not within the next few years to such an extent the growth of knowledge results in a decline in relevant questions.
2. Mathematicians will have a great deal to do in terms of meaningfully formalizing results within Mathlib - and hopefully Isabelle/HOL and other systems as well. From what I have read, the way current AI formalizes theorems makes them unsuitable for these libraries. I envision this as an undertaking not unlike the development of the Linux kernel. Throughout this formalization process, there should always be a human who has actually grasped the reasoning to ensure the AI hasn't simply exploited a flaw of the system.
3. Physics, chemistry, and many other sciences are currently benefiting from AI to a lesser extent. I anticipate significant changes at the interface between mathematics and other sciences as the body of mathematical knowledge expands dramatically. I cannot imagine this resulting in anything other than an increased workload, at least for the next few years.
Isn't it likely that mathematicians' workloads will initially rise rather than fall, provided they are willing to accept a shift in the nature of their tasks?
Your (1) is most certainly true.
As for your (2), most mathematicians I know have at most a passing interest in formalization, Mathlib, and Lean. My understanding, which is admittedly quite superficial, is that AI is actually getting quite good at translating human-readable mathematics. I could be mistaken about this, but even if there is a lot of human work to do, it sounds like a lot of anal-retentive oversight of work you didn't do yourself -- the sort of task that academics love to complain about!
Perhaps human interest in Lean will grow, but I don't anticipate it occupying the attention of more than a small slice of the community.
Your (3) is an interesting question. I work on the theoretical rather than applied side, but what you describe might very well be true for applied mathematicians.
My vote is for interpretive dance. Give the laity something for their money.
I would not presume this at all.
Every brick in the house you live in has been put there by a worker. The food you eat has been cultivated by a farmer. etc. etc.
You must explain what you give back to these people. It's fine if it's in a roundabout way, but it can't be nothing.
And the presumption isn't that there's something. The presumption is that there's nothing, and you must prove there's something.
Similarly, if all you ever read were OpenAI blog posts, you would get a very wrong impression of the usefulness of large language models of today in maths. For a working researcher, it's not a magic wand that you point at any given proposition and it tells you whether that proposition is true or not. It does appear to help if, while pointing your wand and utter the magical incantation “do it up bro”, you also make it convert $15 million into heat, but for most people, this kind of inverted Midas touch isn't quite accessible yet.
Instead, the reality seems to be closer to this, projecting a fair bit: a given mathematician will have a collection of propositions that they care about, and that they'll use as their own internal benchmark as new models come out. Very rarely will anything come out of it, but sometimes, in particular if you make sure to provide the wand with all relevant context, papers that could be relevant, proof strategies and lemma structures that you suspect are useful, something (which may or may not be plagiarism) will pop out, and that's really nifty. Moreover, it is not unimportant what the proposition and the relevant proof is like. And what does come out tends to be quite bizarre; proofs that use terminology that doesn't exist, seem overly pretentious, based on nonsense analogies where it's surprising that it even works at all, and the only comfort is that you can join it with an equally unreadable Lean blob. And where you would be _crazy_ to just publish those artifacts and think that you have contributed much of anything to maths.
But sometimes it works. It's still very unclear what kind of maths the models are good at, but it seems to certainly be an advantage if what you're looking for is a counterexample hidden in a pile of otherwise similar-looking non-counterexamples, if your proof is one that requires considering 36 different cases, each of which are so tedious that no researcher would have the patience to go through them by hand, or if the proof is an amalgamation of several existing structures, some of which are only documented in Georgian.
The gold rush, more than anything else, seems to be populating the convex hull of existing maths.
This can all change. The $15 million wand requirement today will be less tomorrow. Whether we ever get a move 37 is less clear, or whether we will eventually reach stagnation as all low-hanging fruit is picked, and the convex hull is populated; call this cope if you like. But maybe we do get move 37s all over the place, and it's fine that people think about what that future will look like.
Until then, and while we're still picking friut, let us rather have a think about what we can do to fix the incentive mismatch, to ensure that we increase the prestige of digestion over being the first to convince the LLM to do it up. Since that's the one thing everyone seems to agree, chances are it'll probably converge to something that doesn't have to be written in commandment form, but out of the guest posts hosted by Tao so far, the one by Antieau has some useful suggestions for standards (that aren't entirely unlike those from Leiden): https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/15/fast-math-slow-mat...
That's like where chess was when Deep Blue was built by IBM. Productivity improved. There was someone complaining on here recently that the seat-back entertainment system on some airline had a chess program set to "trounce all humans".
Outsourcing understanding, teaching, and proving maths to LLMs is just as dumb as outsourcing food production, manufacturing, or entertainment to a foreign power. It's not that we haven't already done most of those things in the pursuit of temporary profit optimization, but each of them has obviously bad impacts on both the individuals in society who perform those tasks, and on risks to everyone when that outsourcing fails for any reason.
As described, using LLMs is like navigating with GPS. It's fine when you're using it to optimize a path due to traffic conditions, but it can be deadly if you're flying a plane and suddenly don't have it, or any training to deal with that situation. That is where we're headed. I don't really have a take on signing the letter in particular, because as mentioned it seems a bit pointless. At the same time it also seems a bit pointless to spend $10s of millions proving a conjecture a few months sooner than a group of mathematicians already were. I don't imagine they were going to make millions doing it. The definition of material waste.
Perhaps it serves a temporary marketing win for OpenAI, or a medium term improvement in LLM performance on some productive output, but longer term it certainly risks ceding whole swaths of human endeavor to a tool we may not always have. Just as falling demand for farmers, or skilled machinists, or writers, or artists is not an immediate crisis, in the long term there is no one left to transfer the knowledge to the next generation, if something goes wrong.
And anyway a mathematician's lifetime salary is basically nothing. I think total worldwide mathematics budget is less than a tenth of a percent of GDP. Meanwhile, openai cumulative loss stands at tens of billions?
Let’s be honest, Gauss and Euler are a statistical phenomenon.
This is blinders on thinking. The future we are looking at with the help of AI is full of abundance. Money is not an issue in that world.
Why would you think that, when the gains of productivity increases haven't been distributed uniformly during the past several decades? What could disrupt the current trend towards more concentration?
like, ask yourself, in Newton's time, was there much application for calculus? what about today? this is almost universally applicable to all research because even null findings are a map marker of where not-to-look
This is all they were receiving funding for previously? Nothing has particularly changed there.
Most people do not use any math after school in their lives. All of their real problems are political. Kids spend significant time in school being told that math teaches them "problem solving" and then leave school and discover, since math solves no political problems, math doesn't solve problems at all. In other places around the world, where by many measures people are much more numerate than Americans, people are actually poorer and live under more authoritarian governments. In industry, math has been reduced to a shibboleth for a neurodivergent lack of ethics, which is why mathematics PhDs go into banking, and never politics - and we imagine politicians and lawyers to lack ethics, which is pure projection, nearly all of our best presidents and congressmen were lawyers. Even the academic environment that supports mathematicians and the STEM community generally - all of that concentrated neurodivergence and lack of people skills has led to less political power, which means less funding and less new students, which has been much more threatening to mathematics than automated proofs.
I love math, but my honest POV is, the value of theoretical math cannot get much lower. The crisis is insurmountable. The community made its deal with the devil (Jim Simons) long ago, it thought it was a STEM discipline like bio and it's really a philanthropic humanities discipline like opera. Math is having its opera moment. Someone would have to step up as the rich person who saves math, and unfortunately, all the best candidates are right now destroying it with chatbots.
I don’t understand, can you explain this line?
Mathematicians receive almost no funding, as it is pennies coming from the already anemic NSF budget. I don't even know why it's a question as to why liberal arts needs more funding. They don't get any to begin with!
The person who might have made a mathematics breakthrough that results in some miraculous medical or other discovery will likely have decided it's not economically prudent to pursue a career (pure math academia) that the tech sages, in their all encompassing wisdom (exclusively over the next 1 to 2 financial quarters), have deemed worthless, and that instead he or she should just respond to that pesky Big Four recruiter who keeps dangling a cushy six figure internship.
Do you believe it is possible or have any recent examples? I feel like most of the stuff that could be applied to something like this has probably already been developed 100 years ago. This hope for some miracle math that cures cancer sounds like the thing they tell the government to keep the funding going. Most of modern pure mathematics doesn't look like it has any chance of being that. It's getting more specialized every day with more and more papers on obscure topics being published that 2 people in the world read.
I'd love to be corrected as I quite enjoy mathematics myself, though not professionally.
The stuff powering current tech (incl LLMs), the very foundational math, could have been described in exactly that way when it was new. Number theory, basis of most cryptography, was "pure math" not too long ago. It's only useful in hindsight.
Either way it seems like nobody is in a position to say "this branch of math will surely stay arcane abstract nonsense forever", so the argument for continuing specialized math research comes down to "we might lose out on some cool stuff if we stop", even if most of it will indeed remain useless for a long time.
(Besides, it's not more useless than playing the piano. But that's a whole other type of conversation. Though it shares resemblance if you think about it long enough.)
Sometimes one can be convinced that their mathematics will be useful, too. I've just recalled a rather motivating (though his life story is rather sad) quote by Grassmann, the inventor of modern linear algebra, whose mathematical work was not appreciated during his lifetime.
"I remain completely confident that the labour I have expended on the science presented here and which has demanded a significant part of my life as well as the most strenuous application of my powers, will not be lost. It is true that I am aware that the form which I have given the science is imperfect and must be imperfect. But I know and feel obliged to state (though I run the risk of seeming arrogant) that even if this work should again remain unused for another seventeen years or even longer, without entering into the actual development of science, still that time will come when it will be brought forth from the dust of oblivion and when ideas now dormant will bring forth fruit. I know that if I also fail to gather around me (as I have until now desired in vain) a circle of scholars, whom I could fructify with these ideas, and whom I could stimulate to develop and enrich them further, yet there will come a time when these ideas, perhaps in a new form, will arise anew and will enter into a living communication with contemporary developments. For truth is eternal and divine."
Not at all. My point is that the Fields medallists’ letter didn’t provide good arguments, not that there aren’t any. And therefore I’m agreeing with the Gowers quote above.
Or do you mean? 2. Real mathematicians will continue to devote a significant part of their life/energy to mathematics research as a hobby, even if no one is paying them (in any way) to do it? That seems more of a reach and makes me wonder if many currently folks current employed as mathematicians aren't 'Real mathematicians' from your point of view.
With the assistance of AI, we are entering a golden age of individual math research without the need of huge institutions
But external funding, e.g. from the NSF, also supports conferences -- and I suspect that few people would be willing to attend if they had to pay out of pocket. Without this opportunity to talk to one another, the field would be much worse off.
I couldn't do that, but I know there are people more passionate than me.
Here the worry is the social structures of mathematics are eroded such that fewer humans become able to do the work and less well, similarly to how juniors are being recruited less in software engineering, breaking the ladder and leading to fewer seniors in the years to come.
The answer to this really depends strongly on what AI can actually accomplish, but I’ll assume the maximal case and say that AI can do everything economically necessary, and further even those things just desired, such that human labour isn’t required for anything that anyone wants in a practical sense.
Here, we don’t need a human understanding of mathematics to give people a perfect standard of living. We also don’t need humans involved with anything else.
Everything therefore becomes a hobby or a game. People do things because they enjoy them for their own sake, or because they are endeavours used as vehicles to socialise and enjoy others’ company, or because a shared social belief exists and is cultivated such that doing such and such a thing confers social status.
And I think that’s more or less it. I predict we may see some fairly strange sorts of things, such as games where the team structure looks like the descendant of a company org and they compete in an artificial economy. Likewise we may see gamified versions of universities and academia. All of these would be “tamed” such that the rougher parts of the experiences were sanded off.
Sort of like how we evolved in an ancestral environment, and we have certain drives and expectations driven by that environment even though they no longer matter for survival. Our social structures may be derived similarly from those of today, even after they have ceased to serve a real purpose, but changed and repurposed to give meaning and community.
I don't think this is the main issue (if at all) discussed here or in the field medalist letter. If anything, the majority of pure mathematics graduates are absorbed from the industry and a lot of exodus happens along the different scales of academia to there (though industry is also dealing with this issue but that's not what's concerned here). The issue discussed is what mathematics itself will be, which is much deeper. AI finding proofs to open problems does not solve at all the question of how to produce new problems, and there is no indication imo that there is way to go with that with AI.
Pure mathematics is not like applied sciences, as it is only tangentially influenced by external applications. Deciding which problems to tackle is a social process and a matter of taste/aesthetics, and is built largely through the exact friction that is more and more removed with AI. This is what makes it unclear how one can find problems without this friction, and none of these posts/letters have an answer really. Each one seems to describe just different standpoints than concrete, practical ideas.
Your productive friction (eutripsis? ~ negentropy? Viscosity!!!???) seems like a wonderful concept that the original letter should have flagged to rally the community ( Gowers might not have missed this point if they had a new name for it!)
Tao had a relevant talk about the paradox of efficiency..
https://youtu.be/svl_1upFpQo
It's not clear to me that AI necessarily removes this eutripsis. The threat though, might become real if users don't see the threat :)
Also reminiscent of Keat's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_capability#Reception
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/education/glossary/negative...
Still abstract, but nearer to quantitative (mathematical anthrop(ic)ology even?): ordinary, bad friction is, eg, "size-consistent"
So.. for eutripsis, Coasean Floor? LolThe problem imo is that, from a purely psychological/phenomenological perspective, there is not always a perceivable difference between "eutripsis" and "dystripsis" (just made it up but "dys" is the opposite of "eu") as experienced. There is some reward coming from learning through friction (depending on personal interests, environment etc), but mostly it is effort and humans usually try to reduce or avoid effort.
Moreover, even if one tries to be fully mindful and choose where to employ friction and where not, there could be systemic factors to optimise away any kind of friction. Imo we already see that in software engineering, judging from a lot of different anecdotes, where increasing the pace of generating code sacrifising human understanding is already taking place. It is not like these forces are not already in place widely in academia too even before AI (eg optimising for paper output quantity), so AI reinforcing this direction sounds a reasonably probable scenario, unless some other action is taken.
Eg, KPIs, metrics, but of productivity, of "veracity", not understanding
Anecdotes--> better friction than data, sometimes, though :)
How about Inverse Metrics. of simplicity? Parsimony? Shortness of code? (Efficiency/compressibility is a sort of "intensive" metric, so it might not be especially relevant, thermodynamically speaking)
Just taxidermy, stamp collecting, and vibe-anthropologizing here TT
Who gets to define this? Those with power are famously bad at understanding long-term implications, how things work, and what matters - especially when it comes to funding things like research.
Already predicted. How much Whuffie you got?
https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/8086
Now accepting Whuffie donations.
The concern is that AI will further reduce the leverage we have to improve resource distribution, and that we'll return to something that more closely resembles feudalism (IIRC, wealth inequality is already close to where it was in feudal times, albeit we're all richer overall). And/or that (because people won't accept that) we'll end up in a war situation.
You'd think the people who own the technology would be smart enough to avoid that outcome, but so far they aren't showing any signs of it.
Next stop the Culture!
So, to the cobalt mine, you!
Louis chude sokei provides some insights into the historic intertwinedness of race and technology, including the term robot and its epistemological connection to race riots in the US, early to recent sci fi (from victorian age to the apparently adequate representation of rastafarianism as in mel gibson) It is a great read to sensitise oneself to a different perspective as machine as the other of human thtough the lens of the history of people who were considered just that (machines&other)
AI didnt break through stavier-nokes until a human set the initial direction. That's not going to change.
Why isn't this going to change?
Right now it's easy to see why don't set AI lose on every problem, someone human or AI has to delegate rare resources between competing interests. But if we look at general compute it was no different in the past. In 1980 you had to ask for permission to get CPU compute time. In 2026 you run it on your own computer, or maybe pay for it on Amazon. The constraints are much different.
If we keep pumping out chips and increasing efficieny someone will just make the LLM into an agentic loop (build the harness in) and set it lose on problems.
I don’t see the similarity? It’s a dystopia run by a maniacal computer and everyone is forced to live underground until the machine collapses for some reason?
I read that same summary. The similarity is pretty clear: the first step was letting a machine take over all economic and intellectual functions, leaving humanity useless and dependent it.
We're talking about taking that step too.
This is practically impossible, because the "economically necessary" things to do are never fixed but instead are in a state of constant fluctuation.
Furthermore, a chain is only strong as it's weakest link. AI alone is not sufficient to do all the "economically necessary" things. We would need vast numbers of highly advanced robots to do the rest of the work going on in the world (which is >> than the work currently done by AI). So if we restrict the definition of "economically necessary" to mean the subset of all possible tasks that we currently need to do, then we are sorely lacking in the required infrastructure. We may never get there either.
In the meantime, the labor shock knowledge workers experience could lead to large unemployment. Even those that find work doing non-knowledge work, the decrease in pay and benefits may be substantial.
I think these realities are worth understanding to help ground these pie in the sky ideas about what the future will be like. Not to be mean, but your idea of the future is basically a fantasy.
There is actually a big leap in logic you’re doing here that it seems you are naive to. The world looks the way it does today because human societies, businesses and individuals are fundamentally in competition with one another for scarce resources, and having more resources leads to more capacity to survive, so there is always an incentive to acquire more. If you can no longer compete, you can and will be exploited. You don’t have to look very hard, far or back in time to realize that this is what society looks like. If everyone is incapable of competing except those who can afford to run a datacenter, that will not end up in socialist utopia.
When I read this I'm trmpted to read "imaginary" instead of imaginative - that is: in the sense lacanian psychoanalysis uses the term imaginary in contrast to symbolic - the latter of which would mean that it's having consequences within the symbolic social order. From their own, quite selfhonest evaluation the author assumes that without those they would most likely not have persued the mathematical profession. Which also relates to:
"A related risk is that the perception among policy-makers will be that mathematicians are no longer needed and that funding will become much harder to come by: we urgently need to come up with good ways of explaining the value of having a large pool of human mathematical experts, even if it is no longer part of their role to find new proofs of theorems."
Note that there isn't any attempt to establish a possible horizon as to how that coule happen.
It seems to me that the end of the article has a strong tendency to a somewhat stoic attitude of one might phrase as: it is going to happen anyways - the systemic context in which these corporations act makes it inevitable ("However much we might regret that, there is no chance that the impact of such models on mathematics will persuade AI companies to stop their release, though perhaps concerns about safety will lead to some delay and give us a bit more time to work out how to adapt. Assuming that they are released, there will be a flood of new results, whether we like it or not, and it will no longer be the AI companies producing them, though perhaps the pattern will continue that the AI companies will have access to more powerful models and so will obtain more than their fair share of headline results.") - which makes me kind of wonder if it is not some sort of cognitive dissonance within the authors view of the situation to not also think 'it's not going to happen' in regard to their stated requirements (students that don't need to be motivated by a desire to be symbolically valuated as explorers of the mathematical frontier, and policy makers that acknowledge the value of funding the social "production" of human mathematical experts /enable such a community through funding).
So basically they see the same problems as the authors of the letter (which they also state in their letter - their should be no room for a misrepresentation of that fact: "I felt that I could not sign the letter, despite agreeing with much of what it said. Instead, it seemed better to do what I did with the Leiden Declaration and set out my own position in a blog post. But it should be understood that by doing that I am not setting myself up as a member of some opposing camp: indeed one of my worries at the moment is that the mathematical community might become bitterly divided, something I would very much like to avoid.")
So what stays is mostly their disagreement on that conceptual understanding is more important than the solving of problems for all mathematicians. - which kind of makes the problemfield of ai in mathematics somehow more urgent, as far as I have thought it through. And I'm not really convinced that the displacement of the problem into some sort of pedagogy (and it should be appreciated that the author implicate themselves in the responsibility to establish it) instead of finding solutions in the realm of policy and regulation. Seems realistic though, that they see that as an effort unlikely to succeed in a meaningful way.
Can someone argue against that reading? Am I missing something? My conclusion as such is that not only are they not opposing the authors of the fields medalist letter, but also that their evaluation of the situation is much more dire without them giving in to resignation.
> Everything therefore becomes a hobby or a game. People do things because they enjoy them for their own sake, or because they are endeavours used as vehicles to socialise and enjoy others’ company, or because a shared social belief exists and is cultivated such that doing such and such a thing confers social status.
That's true only if you manage to implement communism.
If the economy remains capitalist, it means you'll suffer. There's no pleasant future of self-driven hobbies when you've got nothing to offer the capitalists, so they have no reason to give you any money. You'll have to work hard to scrape by on scraps and meager handouts to merely survive.
And in an odd way, I wouldn't be surprised if society becomes essentially communist for the nepo babies of the wealthy; after a long, slow holocaust of the now-unnecessary working classes, the only people left will be people so rich money doesn't matter. Under capitalism, the only people who are permitted comfort without work are the wealthy.
I'm surprised there's no actual commie coming out and claiming the end of capitalism is near. (except maybe me in my personal socials, only larping as a hobby)
I'm toying with the idea that until people realize capitalism is based on an increasingly invalid assumption that "things are scarce", the capitalist-ish economical system will eventually realize that the only scarce things are new, fun and creative ideas, and slowly value them more and more, which kind of might work out if nothing drastic happens between the times of transition.
The problem (for most of us) is "new, fun and creative ideas" are pretty rare. If a worker has to be a font of them to eat in the new world, not many workers will be eating.
So, no, that won't "work out."
edit: Link changed; it was https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/17/why-i-didnt-sign-t....
My wife cooks to produce a meal and feed our family. The journey is a necessary evil to achieve a goal.
We are aware of this difference in style and have learned to appreciate what each has to offer. At the same time, we sometimes annoy each other in the kitchen.
There is an analogy here to what this essay says.
Ok, so unresolved math problems are often something people discover while trying to solve a different math problem.
However, math problems are really there to solve a real world problem. We have unlimited real world problems no matter how smart AI gets. Therefore, we will always have unresolved math problems.
I think this is totally wrong. Math problems are almost by definition problems with a particular theory. That theory might be inspired by the real world, but the problem itself is purely theoretical. I can't think of any theoretical problems like this that actually support a practical problem, as opposed to being an internal knot in the theory that indicates something is wrong with it. Not to say that cannot happen - certain optimization problems were historically actually hard to solve and solving them helped us to genuinely optimize a real thing (rather than just explain why the answer we already had was correct, which is much more common). In particular, none of the millennium problems have anything to do with a "real" problem, including the Navier Stokes one.
> However, math problems are really there to solve a real world problem.
vs
> That theory might be inspired by the real world, but the problem itself is purely theoretical.
From TFA:
> In my essay The Two Cultures of Mathematics a quarter of a century ago, and which can be summarized by saying that there is a spectrum of attitudes in mathematics to the relationship between problem-solving and conceptual understanding.
The author thinks this letter was choosing only one of them as the "right" approach whereas the better stance is "porque no los dos?"
I have in mind GPS, cryptography, numerical fluid simulation, lasers, etc…
Did the theoretical math lead to the invention of GPS, cryptography, lasers, etc? Or did we encounter a real physical problem, then we found that someone had done some theoretical math before that would be useful for this application? If we run into a real physical problem today, can we just have AI invent the math on the spot to solve the problem without a human having done the theoretical math in the past?
For cryptography, perhaps you would enjoy reading the paper of Diffie and Hellman that proposed public-key crypto: https://ee.stanford.edu/~hellman/publications/24.pdf
You will find they were inspired by the NP-hard knapsack problem, and inspired a bunch of later research that led to RSA.
I think the tapestry of history would suggest the answer to the question "is math responsible for this invention" a lot more complicated than it appears. For lasers, Einstein proposed the idea based on purely theoretical physics, and it was made possible in 1960. Is that "theoretical math leading to the invention of lasers"? Surely he was at least relying on a lot of additional theoretical work for that. On the other hand, much theoretical that came out of Bell Labs were responses to needs for better vacuum tube technology, better amplifiers, etc., which were a deep collaboration between theory, practice, and tradesman with a strong intuition for how to build with various materials and at varying scales.
Moreover, it’s not clear that if (and when as I believe) they do, creating technologies with no human understanding of the framework is possible or desirable.
If we give it a real problem to solve, it may just have to invent a new form of math to solve.
This depends on unanswered questions on what math actually is and it's causal connectivity.
Imagine we have problem A that needs to connect to math solution Z.
The problem is the A -> Z route can only occur in polynomial time in which you need to burn the visible universe to solve. So, that itself is not workable.
As you look at the problem space of A there are a potentially infinite number of paths you could take in the problem topology so again you'd have to brute force the path... mostly unworkable on a lot of problems.
The breakthroughs tend to occur when somewhere in between A and Z there is another mathematical construct M that can link them together. M was very likely discovered something so completely and wildly different you would never link them by brute force. By M existing you narrow the problem space to NP time. M might have sat in the toolbox 100 years unused before that point.
I also disagree that none of them solve "real" problems. They clearly do. Solving them have implications on real world problems.
Solving "real" problems in theoretical mathematics (as in problems directly related to applications) is a very small proportion compared to the vast majority of math work that does not. So if we are discussing about the future of mathematics as a field, we have to understand what the field of theoretical mathematics is actually about.
Would this slow technological progress? Or make it go faster?
That math problems are found and solved as we run into real physical problems.
In fact, the relationship between theoretical mathematics and "real physical problems" is bidirectional, as in "real physical problems" informs to some degree some problems that may be interesting to research on in theoretical math, and at the same time pure mathematical research that is developed completely independent may find applications at some point. And even theoretical mathematicians working close to applications are mostly dealing with problems not directly addressing applications. Eg maybe they study properties of a certain function that arises often in application without any view to solving a specific "real physical problem" with it, and somebody after may find that useful for some application after some point, but that could be one out of 50 papers (random number) and it is hard to predict that. There is of course some work more related to specific real problems, but that's most often not what theoretical math is about, and not what these new developments with erdos problems, navier stokes etc are about.
So what could (in a chaotic sense) have effect in application is mathematical theories developed along the way of solving these pure math problems, which brings us back to the question of what happens if we remove this friction and if AI can do more than construct examples and proofs, ie actually build theories (autonomously or humans+AI). If anything, it is through building theories that mathematical progress germinates applied sciences, as this is the process that develops mathematical tools that can be taken up later, including whole mathematical fields. Building mathematical theories is a heavily social process, and it is the community that basically decides which directions are important to follow.
Because even with supercomputers the equations that describe many physical systems cannot be solved, research and development is still based on a lot of empirical methods, i.e. things must be physically built and measured, because mathematical computations cannot predict their properties with sufficient accuracy.
So if some miraculous algorithms would be discovered for the approximate solution of the systems of equations that are insoluble for now, that could accelerate technological progress a lot in certain domains, especially for the discovery of new materials or chemical substances with desirable properties.
problem specificity, concreteness, engineering relevance, or even "empiricity" seems (vaguely)
proportional to how much "good friction" can be generated.
There's also bad friction related to "meta-ness", "bad names", "aesthetics", etc, I presume. Like bikeshedding and its relatives. Is yakshaving?
Eutripsis? Vs just tripsis
Fermat's Last Theorem was one of the most famous open problems in math for centuries, and it has no direct applicability to any tangible problems here in the physical world.
But yes, none of those are very tangible, until applied to problem solutions that are tangible.
this is ABSOLUTELY not how actual mathematicians see their field. A problem in mathematics is just that: its interest to a pure mathematician is not related to any applications in other disciplines.
I don't really understand what makes a mathematical problem "interesting" because of my bias as an engineer. Nothing is interesting to me unless I can use it to solve a "real world problem". But, I'm willing to concede that "solving real world problems" is really not how mathematics advances.
Things like complex numbers or quaternions were often thought about way outside of the context of their modern applications in physics and engineering. When Hamilton thought about quaternions I really doubt he cared that it would make some programmer's life easier 200 years later:
> Every morning in the early part of October 1843, on my coming down to breakfast,
> your brother William Edwin and yourself used to ask me:
> "Well, Papa, can you multiply triples?"
> Whereto I was always obliged to reply, with a sad shake of the head,
> "No, I can only add and subtract them." [1]
If we go back further, Pythagoreans weren't trying to solve "real problems" either, they were like a weird religious cult.
My point is, the practice of "real" mathematics is really something that odd people feel driven to do, not unlike painting or playing an instrument. All the applied stuff is just a byproduct (not unlike ad billboards or elevator music).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quaternions
While this might be true, I think this is the big pivot that will need to happen. Math, as a human endeavor, will all be applied. We will use LLMs to do the math and discover the math, and humans will apply it to whatever problem they are working on (likely using another LLM to integrate it).
> I felt that there was nothing to be gained from criticizing AI companies for generating too many solutions too quickly.
> Under the circumstances, I think the best we can do is recognise the changes that are coming and try to work out the least unsatisfactory way of dealing with them.
Basically let’s make it a short-term problem and deal with it. Groups of people can deal with short term emergencies. Don’t turn it into a structural issue.
And in my view what’s the alternative in the letter exactly? The tools exist. Is there going to be drama every time somebody decides to use them?
Yeah, that's really great for humanity. Just super.
Is someone knowlegeable on research that engages the question on the development of something that could be considered as some emergent mechanism of memory, that is independent of instances and their contextwindow an specifically also independent of the use of conversations for trainingsdata?
*(This is regarding the value of selfhosted models - maybe small selforganisations that share ressources to do though to do so? Generally the value of machine learning seems to be to big to reject)
This is easy to me. Truth should be the North Star. If there is a fundamental truth that can be found via mathematics, then the shortest route to that truth should be preferred. While LLMs are definitely capable of solving problems in search of truth, I agree with Tao that instant "true/false" results threaten to short-circuit the traditional avenues we have used to escape local minima in the search for truth. Their products may be the junk food that provides immediate satiation in exchange for long-term health. Perhaps it's wrong, though.
I kid, of course, but I do wonder where the use of local "maximum" comes from, what is maximum there? Why do you not see this as a landscape of hills and valleys where marbles with certain energies may indeed get stuck in deep enough holes... Of course, I just assume and picture gravity pointing down in that landscape, but hey. I'm human, I feel it is expected of me.
It works this way with research, with most following the current trends, and some curious souls searching around for other ideas, be they contrarians, dreamers, or just convinced of some strange truth. But if we're right, signs tend to slowly begin to point their way, and we can shift the whole hulking edifice of science towards their point of view.
The problem of llms is that while they may be able to find a shorter route, we can't follow them unless we understand the route. So the forces that slowly begin to change everyone's behavior are lost
> AI offers the potential of enhancing and accelerating genuine mathematical study and understanding. Mathematics as a profession will need to adapt to these changes in several ways. However, whether these changes ultimately benefit the field or have a destructive effect will in large part be determined by the decisions of the humans in control of this new technology.
And unfortunately mathematics is much more fundamental to human endeavor than this.
Wherever we can recognise a problem we can solve it.
And plenty of things, eventually solvable, can create major problems that could both be avoided and the problem solved by taking a much better path.
Having technology and the ability to safely and sanely use the technology needs to progress together at a similar rate. The failure to do this is even a reasonable and common solution to the Great Filter. Jared Diamonds book “Collapse” has ample examples of cultures that wiped themselves completely out via not having this balance, so it’s not simply a theory.
Pro tech people: technology removes bottlenecks. Sometimes we use those bottlenecks as a side effect to build muscle and so on. But removing bottlenecks gives us much higher degrees of freedom. It is up to us to coordinate and make use of the technology.
Anti tech people: bottlenecks are fundamentally useful. They should remain and technology shouldn't remove those so easily. Humans cannot coordinate as well when the bottlenecks are removed, so lets not remove them so quickly.
1) Coordination is hard, and 2) "us" is a hopelessly nebulous term that appears inclusive but is almost always exclusive.
I think people would have said the creation of social media platforms like Facebook was neither good or bad, but rather it was "up to us to coordinate and make use of".
But did our society really have a say over how Facebook and other social media sites were able to embed themselves in our everyday lives? I would argue the answer is no.
> … the push by AI companies to solve mathematical problems as a benchmark is detrimental to the science of mathematics, and to the mathematical community. The goals of the AI companies and the goals of the mathematical community are severely misaligned.
That's literally all there is to it - they don't believe in the rearrangement.
I think you've set up a false dichotomy. I'd propose to you the middle ground that a lot of us are concerned that VC-backed AI slop is "solving" problems in indigestible ways that hollow out the core. This applies in OSS as well as mathematics.
Why can't OpenAI publish whatever it wants. And the math community can use it or not use it. Fundamentally OpenAI's solutions are high signal - they are incentivised to not deliberately mislead people. Let the individuals in math community choose to read it or understand it? If OpenAI wants to publish something, let them do it in the current channels using peer review using whatever time is required.
What's wrong with this? The math community thinks this will destroy previously unwritten ways of prestige allocation and remove incentives that used to exist. I say that the community can rearrange and allocate prestige and time in different ways to maximally use the technology.
But many folks just won't be motivated to attack or help digest solved problems because there's less extrinsic value in doing so. Tao and others argue that it's this human effort that finds human-relatable abstractions which spurn further investigation. Take the humans out of the loop, and they'll stay there, is the argument as I understand it.
“Don’t help me solve my problems because it removes the incentive to be in this field” is how I hear it. Honestly.
I would say the incentives HAVE to change because of new found capabilities.
Imagine accountants asking companies to reconsider producing calculators because we used to value accountants for how well they did arithmetic!!
Edit: my main point is that the math community has full agency to do what it wants with new found tech. Instead, asking to change external entities like OpenAI to be careful with releases is a strange thing to do. Why not change yourself and adapt?
You're describing an improvised surgery on a living organism. Developing a complex system involving humans that is productive and doesn't collapse is extremely hard, so if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Why can’t the letter say “guys new tech dropped. We need to reorganise. Understanding is crucial” instead of asking OpenAI to change their process.
I'm pointing out that the way Mathematics works as a discipline is that a new proof builds on existing proofs. If we have a bunch of machine-generated proofs, then a human Mathematician has to decide whether to reference any relevant machine proof that has been put out there.
If, as you suggest, human Mathematicians 'choose to ignore' a machine proof, then another human decides not to, what then? Mathematics bifurcates into 'pure human' proofs and 'mixed machine-human' or maybe 'pure machine'?
Imagine accountants saying the same thing against calculators. They had to adapt. So do mathematicians. So do I in software development.
Then consider that "just adapt" could be "adapt or die", and that maybe, just maybe there is no way to adapt to well-funded corporations churning out millions of proofs a minute.
I don't know, maybe AI companies have "agency" to not break everyone else's stuff, just to get more funding and a higher share price?
The "math community" is not an isolated entity that is free from the confines of society. It's made up of lots of people who coexist in a system that requires you to assert your right to live.
Furthermore, the "math community" is overwhelmingly supported by outside donations to keep it running. That's not to say people don't practice math for the fun of it, but that if you're researching problems like Navier-Stokes, you almost certainly are being paid by another party to do so. But those parties may hold new forms of technology over the professional mathematicians head in the name of "productivity", or they may even believe in light of this tech that paying a human to practice math is no longer worth it.
Therefore, mathematicians find themselves coerced by the market to adopt new tools in order to get by, even if the mathematical community largely finds it distasteful.
If the math community was previously not entirely aligned with what society was expecting, and these changes threaten that previous arrangement, that sounds like a "you" problem for math, not a problem for OpenAI.
If they can't align with society's needs and demands then some creative destruction is coming their way.
This is the state of affairs today and how everyday people will talk about it.
This is the main issue, and while I fully agree with that value sentiment, the referenced letter failed to provide convincing arguments for why mathematicians should widely receive funding for merely understanding things, and how competition for postdoc and tenure positions would work.
What stops you? I can fathom it alright.
I am always suspicious of these arguments like "a machine won't do thing x which humans can". These always basically pre-suppose that humans aren't machines. If that's what you're arguing for, say it outright.
The ironic part is that generating a joke like this requires jumping across three distant fields: real analysis, machine learning limits, and VC market cynicism. For an AI to discover that specific overlap through statistical search, the combinatorial space is absurdly huge. Yet a human brain connects them in a fraction of a second. This tiny joke is a micro-proof of the macro-argument: human conceptual leaps routinely bypass exponential search spaces.
Now, if an LLM proves a theorem, it's like discovering a new mountain and knowing what its peak looks like. Does that mean the problem is finished? No, we still need climbers to actually do the work and advance the field with human understanding.
Now these means are generated. If the proof yields some improvement somewhere, it can be used and there needs to be no human in the loop
This is exactly the activity Tao and others worry will be hollowed out by instant "true/false" responses to novel questions.
finding new conjectures is the second interesting part
"instant "true/false" responses to novel questions."
Fair enough. Then we can add ordering and analyzing theorems with the help of AI as a third activity, admittedly the least interesting one.
Perhaps he will follow Jacob Tsimerman and try to work on AI safety. Or alternatively lend his influence to politics. It's an interesting time for sure.
[1]: https://scottaaronson.blog/?p=10062
Yikes, the man is lost.
Tsimerman's MAISI has the same purpose as UK's AISI: To promote and rubberstamp AI.
There is no reason for him to downplay current events anymore, as even his kids are asking him questions.
Do you have any thoughts on what Scott should be doing instead?
These theorems DO benefit humanity but are largely unseen. You ask the LLM to make you an app. The LLM makes the app and utilizes entire languages, theories and processes made by discoveries that you as a human are not a privvy to. It all goes into the this body of knowledge only decipherable by AI.
This is the future AS long as current trendlines stay the same. As long as progress keeps going at the rate it currently is going. This is the best predictor.
Personally, and I have no evidence for this though, I think we'll hit another barrier and AI will stop making progress for about a couple decades or so. So humanity still has some time to have fun before something gets over the hump.
Funny. Reminds me of programmers who like to program, and programmers who like programming because it lets them build things. The first group hates AI, the second loves it.
Or perhaps the second group has always exploited and stolen from real open source developers? Maybe the second group is a bit dumb, just like the AI addicts? But the second group is always ready for ideological justifications for their theft.
Few of them mention research theft, none of them mentions concentration of capital and resources.
The fact that Gowers quotes Tsimerman (OpenAI employee) says it all. A couple of mathematicians are determined to bulldoze forward with AI, and I suspect Tao will also continue after the meek concern letter and the cleverly worded guest posts that are subliminal ads for AI.
There's definitely the possibility that in just a few years, human mathematicians will largely become irrelevant in the face of extremely capable models.
I don't like it, I think there are a lot of bad side effects to it, but I think it's important to face that possibility.
Before arguing whether mathematics must strictly be done by humans, there are different motivations at play. Some people love the sense of solidarity within the community that forms during the process. Those excluded from that community might resent it, while others just purely want to solve problems.
Many things are being discussed, but looking at the overarching narrative, it seems that AI's true function isn't necessarily opening new horizons of specific knowledge, but rather excelling at 'serializing' topics that have been heavily fragmented until now.
In that sense, the concern is that because AI is solving the very problems needed to cultivate mathematicians internally, the stepping stones required for human growth are disappearing.
However, on the other hand, as the world and industries become increasingly complex and hyper-specialized, you could also argue that AI is the exact tool needed to unify this fragmentation across academia and industry. It is a highly complex dilemma.
From the perspective of researchers and the mathematical community, those 'problems for growth' must remain. But conversely, AI has the distinct ability to serialize siloed disciplines. Usually, when you go to graduate school, you often hear professors say that even within the exact same major, they cannot understand each other if their sub-specialties differ.
>the stepping stones required for human growth are disappearing.
Actually only in an institutional sense, imho. Maybe I'm exaggerating, but reddit.com/r/math* or even mathstackexchange will be so back with users analyzing and distilling proofs with AI. Maybe in 5 years (when lean attains 10% popularity of rust, and/or gpt7 level models cost ~USD5 on average, per month, inflation adjusted or not) this types of submissions will make those sites as fun/educational as mathoverflow [has always been for me]. One dreams that by that time openAI and Anthropic will have taken down your ethno-cultural "compatriot" Masayoshi with them.. (I prefer his brother whom he did not regret giving a physical beating to. Only purely on principle) so that they can't acquire these sites
Such forums can then replace math grad school, if the profs/alpoges who drop by get into the habit of constructive criticism (as they do on mathSE already). It's already starting, I see personally interesting 1 AI-aided submissions every 1.5-3 weeks starting 2 months ago
It would be like rust discussions on HN for you I bet.
This seems unlikely when s/math/physics/, or s/Reddit/HN/ because HN hates AI-aided posts so ideologically (sorry mods, I don't mean you guys). MO is also not as welcoming to outsiders/lay, congruent to academia (only online) PhysicsSE/overflow had become dumb and arrogant last decade
HN, even pg seem anti-intellectual in effect tbh whenever they sneer at AI _writing_ (again sorry mods, you will figure this out soon I believe, do you or do you not want HN to end up as a reservation for meatbrains), though I mostly am on their coder side with regards to this fields medallist letter
I have tried solving a few math problems with AI (they were Erdős problems), but because I know absolutely nothing about that math, I couldn't just take the AI's word for it, so I am actually a bit skeptical. A problem arises where you arrive at the answer without actually understanding it. It's not that AI is bad. The problem is that AI destroys the equilibrium between the knowledge I have and the knowledge I lack. That boundary collapses, making it feel as if I can know everything.
Actually, academia is fundamentally about mental models. It's a kind of internal worldview, and that worldview is shared. When you actually listen to the thoughts of scholars and professors, there are subtly different aspects. That forms the person's worldview... and I get the feeling that sharing it is what constitutes intellectual activity.
However, as you mentioned, unlike academics like yourself, academia and knowledge communities seem disconnected to someone like me (meaning they lack accessibility). Even if I were to make a discovery, it would probably be hard for me to become recognized, and I do think AI could actually play a role in opening up those closed communities. But apart from that, I find it hard to say that this only has positive aspects.
I followed Karpathy's research from start to finish to build a small LLM like nanoGPT on my own, and people say that because of the positive transfer that comes from feeding diverse data through modern LLM multimodal encoders, there will be new discoveries. But in reality, the types of problems AI excels at are generally those that humans have found but overlooked. In my opinion, rather than being a knowledge machine, LLMs (or AI) make me feel that what we call "intellectual activity" is closer to a kind of serialization work. A method of stacking things up one by one in sequence, so to speak? After all, the actual operating principle of an LLM proceeds according to the probability of the token coming in the next sequence.
In other words, I think the serialization method of our knowledge activities is similar to how LLMs operate, but I also think a different kind of thinking might be necessary. I am not that smart, and I have never interacted with scholars... (As you know, I am a subcontract worker. Of course, I have been hired by startups run by professors in my country, but it's not like I modeled that intellectual design myself.)
On the contrary, I feel that the evolutionary approach will slow down after GPT 6 Astra. They can continue to increase the size, but the issue lies in the cost-effectiveness of token costs.
Anyway, I agree with most of what you said in your discussion, but rather than anti-intellectualism, I consider this a direct threat to survival.
Seems to be a deep and interesting angle lurking here, especially when coupled to
>evolutionary approach will slow down
Meaning something I will have to think about (while keeping Graeber in the background[0]) or even plan around :)
Will respond after I sleep on it
[0] https://davidgraeber.org/articles/value-as-the-importance-of...
In value terms, the question becomes: who has the right to translate their money into what sorts of meaning? Who controls the medium through which, and the institutions through which, our actions become meaningful to ourselves, by the very act of being publicly recognized in some kind of public arena? It seems to me that while if one is trying to understand the strategies by which people can move back and forth between “fields”, and especially, by which some are excluded from them, Bourdieu’s models are pretty much indispensable, THEY DO LITTLE to tell us why anyone wishes to enter certain fields to begin with.
The evolution of fields, of domains of enquiries. AI-independent
First of all, I take it for granted there is really no such thing as “intelligence”
Writing like this from 2005, feels like a personal bedtime Bible for AI age
For those of you who haver never slid a slide rule, here's the part that makes this anecdote make sense: they're a mechanical logarithm, this allows one to do multiplication as addition, but there's a catch: you have to know the "characteristic", that is, the order of magnitude of the result. The slide rule won't tell you that.
They argued that this requirement leads to an intuitive grasp of magnitudes, which is of real benefit to the discipline.
And they were correct. However, engineering is, by all appearances, doing just fine.
Where they erred, and it was a natural mistake to make, is in assuming that pedagogy must recapitulate phylogeny. That engineers should start with the slide rule, just like the profession did, and then graduate to the calculator, just like their professors did.
But this is wrong. It makes the slide rule an impediment: a known-to-be-obsolete object, standing between the student and graduating to the device he or she knows, full well, is what will be used for the rest of his or her career.
Instead, teach the concepts and the foundation with the modern tools. Then, senior year, in addition to the thesis project, teach "OG" engineering: slide rules, graph paper, mechanical pencils. Along with the thesis, which should stretch all the skills already mastered to their limit, require a feat of engineering which is within the student's capability, but: no CAD, no calculators.
This would actually work. This gives them an opportunity to find out what they're missing, build some of that order-of-magnitude intuition, really solidify what a "sketch" in CAD is all about, all of it: and understand that any force multiplier can be a crutch, if you let it.
I've been just delighted with what I can accomplish in "centaur mode" with LLM agent assistance. I've made real progress on longstanding research topics. But to do so, it's essential to never let them be a substitute for one's own understanding. They turn out to be really good at explaining difficult passages in research papers!
My gloss on what's happened with LLMs in mathematics (understand, I am not a mathematician), is that we're discovering that solving conjectures is just not that important. Not the first time this has happened: simplifying and manipulating algebraic equations was very important, and then, it wasn't.
Making conjectures, that's where the action is. Always has been. No one thinks that solving an Erdős conjecture puts one in the same rank as Erdős Pal, because it doesn't.
When the first mainframe computers came along, there was a brief flurry of conjectures, some of them longstanding, which were either proven or disproven by brute exhaustive search. What's happening now is different in magnitude, and even in kind: but more in magnitude than in kind.
It wouldn't be fitting to be glib about the disruptive effect this is having, and perhaps (although I don't think so) we'll cross some threshold at which it doesn't even make sense to contemplate humans doing authentic intellectual labor. That would be bad. If you think that's on the horizon, you're right to be upset about it; I don't, but I won't try and persuade you otherwise, because the point is far from obvious, and both of us are predicting the future, which is known to be a risky business.
The "publish or perish problem" which this new development surfaces is not new to this development. The entire concept is well past its sell-by date, and while mathematics is perhaps the intellectual pursuit least corrupted by the dog-and-pony show, it is and has been undignified, inhumane, and always to some degree dishonest. Time to come up with something better.
That said, I think there is an articulable concern about the recent AI events as it may threaten human's autonomy and relation to science and mathematics. Just not one premised on that. What's interesting is seeing different academics having predictable reactions, for example Sabine Hossenfelder is more politically libertarian so in this case she said DGAF about human mathematicians at all. Scott Aaronson is another interesting example, he wrote a blog post a couple days ago as well.
> AI offers the potential of enhancing and accelerating genuine mathematical study and understanding. Mathematics as a profession will need to adapt to these changes in several ways. However, whether these changes ultimately benefit the field or have a destructive effect will in large part be determined by the decisions of the humans in control of this new technology.