Tao was not an early nay-sayer.

If anything he is very pro-AI and far from a naysayer. Labelling anyone who doesn't isn't Linkedin style "stoked" "excited" about AI is not helpful.

This is a technology not like prior technologies. Are we okay if the technology discourages a whole generation of Mathematicians? If the technology leads to 10x fewer mathematicians -- what impact does that have on the field? These are the questions Tao is asking. And I don't think he himself claims to have all the answers, he just doesn't wanna see the math _community_ die.

▲

teekert 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Certainly not implying that! He's the one with the deferred judgement and the wisdom.

▲

computerfriend 7 hours ago | parent [-]

Oh, sorry, misinterpreted you! Although I am not sure I agree with your dismissal of nay-sayers. We can equally dismiss the opinions of early proponents. Perhaps maybe we should be hedging on all early opinions regardless.

	▲	teekert 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah agree with you, and perhaps both are even important in our public opinion forming... Recently I've been hearing people like Grant Sanderson on AI, and they are all very "wise" and informed, neither dismissive nor mindlessly (p/b)ro, but really thinking implications of this technology through. Like Tao does here. I love it, these people provide real direction.