The Math community can "not use" a proof? How would that work? It's a little like coloured functions (async etc) - you have 'human proved' vs 'machine proved'?

▲

gottheUIblues 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

The dichotomy is more 'human understood' vs 'not human understood', I think

▲

simianwords 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Are you suggesting that a human can't have the agency to decide whether to use it or not?

▲

gilleain 2 days ago | parent [-]

No, obviously not ...

I'm pointing out that the way Mathematics works as a discipline is that a new proof builds on existing proofs. If we have a bunch of machine-generated proofs, then a human Mathematician has to decide whether to reference any relevant machine proof that has been put out there.

If, as you suggest, human Mathematicians 'choose to ignore' a machine proof, then another human decides not to, what then? Mathematics bifurcates into 'pure human' proofs and 'mixed machine-human' or maybe 'pure machine'?

▲

simianwords 2 days ago | parent [-]

Well ok I understand your point. I’m trying to say the system has to change to adapt.

Imagine accountants saying the same thing against calculators. They had to adapt. So do mathematicians. So do I in software development.

	▲	gilleain 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		Consider that 'calculator' used to be a title for a role a human used to do. That went away, which is probably fine as there were other jobs and likely it was tedious. Then consider that "just adapt" could be "adapt or die", and that maybe, just maybe there is no way to adapt to well-funded corporations churning out millions of proofs a minute. I don't know, maybe AI companies have "agency" to not break everyone else's stuff, just to get more funding and a higher share price?