Hacker News Reader

Comment by nilkn | Hacker News Reader

> There are vast libraries full of mathematics no one (in this discussion, anyway) has ever heard of that no one reads anymore and has never been applied to anything.

And that's an issue why? It would seem to me that producing that also produced the mathematics that revolutionized the world repeatedly for centuries. I would go further and claim that, if you want the mathematics that revolutionizes the world, there's no way to get it without advancing mathematics as a field broadly. Those are not two separate activities, and thinking that they are is indeed a misconception.

> This idea of trying to "prove all the math" with AI makes as much sense to me as using chess engines to try to "solve chess."

You're right: "prove all the math" does not make sense on any level, and nobody serious would phrase any of this in that way. I certainly didn't.

View on HN

And that's an issue why?

The issue is SNR: signal to noise ratio. Generating exponentially more mathematics, particularly if the process is indiscriminate or optimized for something other than usefulness or mathematical relevance (such as optimizing for machine-provability), does not imply that we get exponentially more applications. We may end up halting the progress of applications altogether as the entire capacity of the world's mathematical apparatus is consumed by the interpretation and investigation of machine-generated proofs.

You can already visit arXiv and find vast numbers of not-yet-published mathematical papers. Most should never be published. None of this junk is benefitting humanity in the slightest.

It could just as easily be the opposite: it could end up being far easier to reasonably direct and evaluate the research direction and output of AI systems than human mathematicians, who are forced to specialize over decades and essentially cannot pivot and often can't even meaningfully evaluate each other's work.

Moreover, the disdain you have for low-value output in mathematics is not unique to you. Talented mathematicians don't like it either. Your mistake is assuming that AI will cause math to be dominated by low-value outputs. In fact, the opposite is likely the case: the marginal value of proofs will fall so low that the bar for meaningful research will become dramatically higher, not lower. I expect the goals of research mathematics to become extremely ambitious relative to the past, organized around substantial and enormous goals, not mass-generated slop as you're imagining.

Of course, yes, there will still be lots of slop, just like GitHub is full of AI coding slop, LinkedIn is full of slop, etc. But that's a generalized issue of the AI era, not unique to math.

Moreover, the disdain you have for low-value output in mathematics is not unique to you

I didn't say anything about low-value output. No one actually knows the value of any particular piece of mathematics within that deluge. Mathematicians don't have a magical ability to differentiate high-value mathematics from low-value merely by reading paper titles and abstracts.

The dirty secret in the mathematical world -- that has been going on for a long time already -- is that papers get attention based on the reputation of the authors, not on the rigour or validity of the proof. The big headline-grabbing papers are getting read by mathematicians because AI researchers have leveraged media exposure to bypass the reputation network, but media exposure doesn't scale.

When everyone is using LLMs to generate proofs, only reputable mathematicians will be able to get their work read. And herein lies the crux of the problem: an exponential takeoff in the volume of output from respected mathematicians will leave a critical shortage of readers.

it could end up being far easier to reasonably direct and evaluate the research direction and output of AI systems than human mathematicians

That's baseless speculation. All indications so far are that LLMs produce proofs far longer and far more complicated than humans are capable of, such that only machines can check the proofs for validity. Digesting them into a human-readable interpretation of the results is an open problem.

> I didn't say anything about low-value output.

False. You very plainly did. You simply used the term “junk” instead.

> That's baseless speculation.

It might be speculation (as is much of what you’re writing), but it’s not baseless. Obviously, it’s quite easy to direct AI agents, a single one of which can pivot across all of mathematics, unlike all human mathematicians.

> All indications so far are that LLMs produce proofs far longer and far more complicated than humans are capable of, such that only machines can check the proofs for validity.

I’m unaware of any clear evidence of this. Hence, it appears to be baseless speculation.

> Digesting them into a human-readable interpretation of the results is an open problem.

I’m unaware of any clear evidence of this. Hence, it appears to be baseless speculation. Moreover, and more importantly, to my knowledge there hasn’t been any meaningful result in AI mathematics so far that has posed any kind of blocking issue on understanding it yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com