| ▲ | freehorse 20 hours ago | |||||||
> I believe in chasing fantastic scientific and mathematical progress with the help of LLMs, we risk imperiling our institutions, our professional norms, and human mathematical understanding I don't think that defending institutions and professional status is a great image for a largely publicly funded academia. Academia should not be about reproducing itself firstmost. This may be a bit less pronounced in mathematical academic work ("which is already useless" as author says and def more honest about it) but broadly academia should care more about progress than its institutional status and professional norms (as in the status in which careering in academia is defined, not honesty, integrity, rigour and other such norms that are already not as greatly upheld anyway in many parts of it as it should). The "human mathematical understanding" is indeed a valid concern imo. | ||||||||
| ▲ | ianbicking 20 hours ago | parent [-] | |||||||
Maintaining human understanding in the face of fast progress is a big unsolved problem. If you are worried about there being nothing left when LLMs tear their way through a topic then the presence of a big unsolved problem should be comforting! And it seems legitimately like an important problem for mathematics (and other areas), one which is deeply academic in the best sense: mathematicians spend much more time transmitting understanding than doing novel math, because they mostly exist in academia and that’s the job. | ||||||||
| ||||||||