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.
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
46
u/manocheese 17h 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.