It also aligns with the fear that these proofs present a risk to the ecosystem by out-competing attempts at more human-readable proofs. Perhaps though we end up with more math influencers who edit and annotate these proofs to bring them back to us.

▲

whatshisface an hour ago | parent | next [-]

The ecosystem is (ahem) gated by hiring committees. There is no risk of AI replacement from the inside. "Replacement" is not even a possible movement. The funding for mathematics worldwide comes mostly from endowments, which are investment pools.

▲

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

I think that's ultimately a good thing. As proofs weren't supposed to be the point as stated by William Thurston long ago. Maybe now the focus can be more on better explanations and creating tools for growing understanding and intuition.

▲

cowlevel an hour ago | parent [-]

Good explanations should take the form of human-understandable proofs.

	▲	btilly an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Define "human understandable". It's worthy of note that most humans, do not find most mathematicians understandable. As is frequently demonstrated in Calculus classes. Therefore it is arguable that even human produced results are not generally human understandable.

▲

rrr_oh_man 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Vibe mathing