|
| ▲ | nafey 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think his point is that AI is not creating new problems. It may solve "the Riemann hypothesis" but may completely fail to posit a "Mythos hypothesis" which is vital to advance the field. In fact, achieving the former may make the latter even harder because it will disincentivize production of human mathematics which has till now been the only source of "interesting" problems. FWIW this is my understanding of his argument and I am not a mathematician. |
| |
| ▲ | gre 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Have we asked AI to create new interesting math problems? XD |
|
|
| ▲ | monktastic1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| But this oracle doesn't just say true / false. It also gives a proof. That makes it much less exciting (not to mention beneficial for your career) to find another one (or even worse, the same one). |
| |
| ▲ | gowld an hour ago | parent [-] | | The "proof" is merely an appeal (unreadable program) submitted to a different oracle (Lean). |
|
|
| ▲ | _alternator_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I mean, the oracle doesn't really seem so hypothetical right now. And clearly it's going to drastically change these fields, and mathematics, particularly pure mathematics, must change most of all in order to adapt to the existance of a math oracle (or something close to it). |
|
| ▲ | applicative 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yes, the present developments, and the present approach, mean we will not have mathematicians any more. |
| |
| ▲ | dvt an hour ago | parent [-] | | Your confident re-assertion still doesn't convince me, why do you think so? |
|
