> It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound?

But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs.

It's kind of surprising so many mathematicians act surprised by this given this was clearly where automated proof assistants would lead. I guess they assumed they'd always be the ones guiding them.

▲

mb7733 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs.

What is the purpose of that?

Its like art being produced for AI to consume. What is gained from that?

▲

TheOtherHobbes 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's going to be hard to compete with something that has access to all of math at once and can find connections between elements that appear unrelated to humans.

And at some point AI will start suggesting - or doing - physical experiments.

▲

fidotron 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Well if it proves useless presumably they'd stop doing it.

But if AI is to recursively self improve understanding and evolving its own foundations, which are clearly mathematical, is essential. There is no need for humans to grasp what is going on in that loop.

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

saghm 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, was the point of math ever just because some humans enjoyed doing it? Even though a lot of it is theoretical, there's been all sorts of useful things that have come out of it as well due to an improved understanding of the universe through new ways of thinking about it. If it got to the point where no human could understand it and there were no ways to actually use it, I don't think anyone would bother having their computers doing it at all.

	▲	lacunary 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		wouldn't AI solving problems in science, engineering, economics, etc be able to apply the new AI math?

▲

magicalist 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]