I imagine doctors will also clutch their pearls when Ai starts curing disease. "But curing disease was never the point! These arbitrary dumps of AI cures for cancers is unsustainable! Who will think of the doctors and who will build their communities further? From now on progress in medicine must be redefined as what makes doctors thrive, not what generates cures!"

▲

omnicognate 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's a strong contender for the worst analogy I've ever seen on HN, and it's a crowded field.

Edit: If you'd like a better medicine based one, look to radiology, where AI is an omnipresent tool but claims that radiologists are no longer needed, based on an ignorant view that a radiologist's job is "classify images according to what diseases they indicate" have only contributed to a crippling worldwide shortage of radiologists.

	▲	bonoboTP 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[flagged]

▲

xyzzy123 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I think the difference is that with cancer cures we mostly care that it works as proved by trials, and understanding it is a bonus.

Up until now the prize in pure (as opposed to applied) mathematics was the _understanding_ and the machine can't do that for you. What does it mean if we get "super powered alien maths" but humans can't do it? It's like inter univeral teichmuller theory but imagine if Mochizuki was right and it came with a lean proof?

▲

bonoboTP 7 hours ago | parent [-]

It was the understanding for some, and the result for others. Math is going to bifurcate along those lines. Many are the builder type who use math for a purpose. To accelerate an algorithm, to improve the numerics or convergence of a computation, to verify statements about real things, to use it in angineering applications, etc etc.

In my view, over the last century, math has turned into an intellectual analogue of extreme bodybuilding competitions. A navel gazing runaway optimization in making useless stuff just to demonstrate cleverness. That's fine, why not. But society has no obligation to fund that, just as it doesn't fund other extreme hobbies. Ideally if we ever get something like UBI, math can be still their hobby.

▲

xyzzy123 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Right. What I not sure about - even for builders - even when the results are technically verifiable, the details can still matter. AI is really good at proving or building a slightly different thing than you thought you asked for, and if you're not at a level where you can understand key details of the formalisation of your ask, you cannot safely use the results.

Without human understanding you also might literally have no words for the thing you would otherwise want to ask for.

I think it'll be wildy useful but I also suspect human competence will still matter.

▲

MrToadMan 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Apart from the fact that elite sports are funded probably at least 10x more than pure mathematics research.

	▲	bonoboTP 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's mainly for national pride reasons like the Olympics, world championships etc. Others are profit driven when there is spectator interest. So make mathematicians proudly wear their flag colors and sing the anthem while lecturing to cheering spectators. Might work.

▲

ks2048 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Doctors don't cure diseases, they treat patients.

Maybe AI will take over some roles of doctors, but that's independent of curing diseases. Think about diseases that have a cure - do people with those diseases not go see a doctor?

▲

ziiinq 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[dead]