Science doesn't have to be a grind with AI.

No one "forces" anyone to verify it.

I said the same thing in another thread and someone compared it to no one forcing you to own a smart phone. I will preempt that argument by saying the community is motivated to verify these results because they are important to the field.

That means there's no crisis in mathematics after all, right?

This reprioritization of math would release a tremendous amount of human capital to do other more productive things other than posing yet another abstract puzzle which may or may not have an use in a few hundred years. It's not even clear if the human race can survive until then nor is it justified to spend that resource researching that far ahead instead of just when we need it.

> reprioritization of math would release a tremendous amount of human capital to do other more productive things other than posing yet another abstract puzzle which may or may not have an use in a few hundred years

We don’t know this! We might just have no more American mathematicians because folks who aren’t mathematicians don’t understand that we’re turning mathematical breakthroughs from just a couple decades ago into real, working technology.

> It's not even clear if the human race can survive until then

It’s pretty obviously clear the human race can survive for hundreds more years…

> It's not even clear if the human race can survive until then nor is it justified to spend that resource researching that far ahead instead of just when we need it.

"Climate change is going to kill everyone in 50 years so we'd better work fast if we want to burn all this coal by then"

Yeah but we are not talking about what should be studied, but rather what should be funded

Both opinions are being voiced here (albeit maybe some are just bad at wording things). And gatekeeping what others should do with their money is stupid. And coincidentally, actually communist, or oligarchist of some flavor.

Let's just wait until the truth comes out to see how smug you were

I’m pretty smug

How about not trying to be always on the cutting edge ? Is mathematics a sport ?

Doing research is by definition to be on the cutting edge.

AI labs don't even need models to out compete mathematicians, they can employ enough mathematicians to out compete those who are not affiliated.

The questions is whether if we want research to be held in a oligopoly.

We don't train current LLMs to mimic the average human's writing style. We train it to be smart, helpful, and knowledgable, too knowledgeable for a human. We can easily train a LLM to pass the Turing test if we wanted to, but then it would just sound dumb or biased.

> We can easily train a LLM to pass the Turing test if we wanted to, but then it would just sound dumb or biased.

Interesting idea. "This is not dumb and biased enough, probably not a human".

There is tons of money trying to get customer support bots to sound human but they fool nobody.

> but it would just sound dumb or biased

We have one of those: Grok.

Yes, and it's indistinguishable from the average X user.

Bold of you to assume they’re actual users.

Stable environment for new hardware where everything works out of the box.

Also weird old hardware.

ROTFL. Starts ? Maybe. Works ? Also maybe.

Computation on human brain is on a totally different substrate than silicon. It's in memory and highly error prone.

It's questionable a mere algorithm would get us there without a fundamental change in computer architecture. (in terms of Intelligence / W)

Security is another problem, and should be tackled systematically. Artificially making dependency inclusion hard is not it and is detrimental to the more casual use cases.