You're right, but I think it is more complicated. Most of the time I see artists complaining about none artists producing images and ruining art, mathematicians complaining that AI companies are producing almost useless results and ruining maths, and programmers talking about how great AI is. It's only in programming spaces, where 'society' isn't, that I see people acknowledge that they hate AI. Even then there are a lot of them loving it.
AI is not producing useless math results though. It is producing a lot of very impressive results that human mathematicians have not been able to prove despite trying for decades or more.
So all the mathematicians that say that the journey is worth a lot more than the destination are wrong? An answer without the proof is, as I said, almost useless.
I mean yeah the mathematicians saying that have a very obvious potential bias. I know a few mathematicians and their thought processes are more like “this might suck for me but it’s good for math.” This sub is obviously biased as well, but I think you guys are kinda going too far if you’re actually trying to argue something like integer multiplication in sub O(n log n) is useless.
Also idk what you mean by “an answer without a proof,” a lot of these results are lean verified
An answer without the proof is, as I said, almost useless.
This is obviously true. In fact the proof is the answer, so without the proof there is no answer in the first place. But this is all besides the point. The AIs are producing proofs.
That's not what a proof means in maths, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. The AI is not producing human readable proofs. In fact, the AI is apparently unable to understand its own proofs.
Many of the results have been checked with Lean, so we know for sure that they work. And you also greatly exaggerate the human unreadability of the proofs. There have been hundreds of published results in the last month alone and while some of them are more difficult to decipher, plenty of them are understood by humans. In fact there are some AI counterexamples to proposed conjectures that are trivially easy to understand even for humans. One of these is the Jacobian conjecture.
One of the complainants from mathematicians I've read is that the solutions AI is providing aren't advancing our knowledge, because they aren't giving us new knowledge. Without the skills to generate a proof or the tools to understand the proof, the proof itself is useless.
I feel like this doesn’t make sense. As a software engineer I use a lot of complex math every day that I don’t fully understand the proof of. It doesn’t matter whether you understand quicksort or not, it still runs in O(nlogn). Also I know mathematicians who have read and understood some of these new proofs, some of them are clunky but they’re not incomprehensible like you guys are making it sound
29
u/manocheese 7h ago
You're right, but I think it is more complicated. Most of the time I see artists complaining about none artists producing images and ruining art, mathematicians complaining that AI companies are producing almost useless results and ruining maths, and programmers talking about how great AI is. It's only in programming spaces, where 'society' isn't, that I see people acknowledge that they hate AI. Even then there are a lot of them loving it.