Sure, or you can think for yourself for five minutes on the implications of a general proof machine, and whether it's likely to continue producing proofs.

If you've forgotten how to think for yourself, you can also ask an LLM.

The host of the blog, Tao, was an early booster. He didn't think through the implications, and seems to have expected it to remain unable to do interesting work. Today he's on a "war footing".

I don't think mathematics are uniquely skilled at predicting the future, and the impacts of AI on their profession.

▲

kaffekaka a day ago | parent | next [-]

It is weird. From what I can tell, you and I have quite similar expectations on what AI will be able to do in the future, but for some reason you are much more dismissive of Taos opinion.

I perfectly understand his point and it is not about being selfishly frustrated by a machine being better than him. Is that really your interpretation of the discourse?

▲

0c3ca83 a day ago | parent [-]

Tao didn't write this article.

Either way, either there's no future for AI in math, or there's no future for people in math. I think this is true for many professions.

	▲	kaffekaka 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Tao didn't write this article. True, but you referred to Tao yourself: "The host of the blog, Tao, was an early booster. He didn't think through the implications, and seems to have expected it to remain unable to do interesting work. Today he's on a "war footing"." My comment was in response to this.

▲

wonnage a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Neither are mindless AI boosters

https://fortune.com/article/ai-godfather-radiologists-obsole...

Ironic that you resort to “think for yourself” as your silly name calling go to btw