Mathematicians will probably become obsolete before anyone else [pdf] (2004)
olli.unt.edu
olli.unt.edu
So this is our battle-cry: “Ted Kaczynski wasn’t wrong!”
Dear Mr.,
In your letter of December 14, you ask me whether mathematics is a worthwhile endeavor. Mathematics absolutely is not a worthwhile endeavor! I can imagine only three possible reasons for studying mathematics:
(1) Entertainment. (2) To promote technological progress. (3) To promote one’s own career.
Reason (1) is harmless; but one doesn’t refer to entertainment as a “worthwhile endeavor”; it’s just a pastime.
As for reason (2), modern technology is the worst thing that ever happened to the world, and to promote its progress is nothing short of criminal. Read Our Final Century, by Martin Rees; or read “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” an article by Bill Joy that appeared in Wired magazine, April, 2000.
As for reason (3), to choose mathematics as one’s career would be very risky. Not long ago I received a letter from a gravestone sculptor whose craft had been rendered obsolete by a laser-guided machine that carved gravestones automatically. He was in his forties, unable to find work, and depressed. Maybe you think that can’t happen to you if you become a mathematician. But you’re wrong. Martin Rees, Bill Joy, and many other distinguished experts believe that within a few decades machines will be developed that will be more intelligent than even the smartest human beings. When that happens, people will be obsolete; they will be phased out and will be replaced by computers and robots. This will happen to everyone eventually, but mathematicians probably will become obsolete before anyone else does, because mathematics is more amenable to computerization than any other field. Hence, computers probably will surpass humans in mathematics before they do so in other areas.
Sincerely yours, Ted Kaczynski
The Joy article mentions is here https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ by the way, and includes discussion of Kaczynski.
One possibility is that AI keeps churning out new math and funnels it into other branches of science and engineering without any human input. At which point math becomes a black box. Maybe in that case human mathematicians might become obsolete. But then other branches will start becoming incomprehensible as well.
People still go on runs although that's not what wins wars today.
For instance, in mathematics, we have A ⇒ A (every statement implies itself, for instance "if it rains, then it rains"); and analogously, in programming, we have the identity function of type A → A (which reads a value as input and outputs the same value).
This is the tip of an enormous iceberg identifying, in a certain precise sense, proving with programming (and stating mathematical assertions with specifying the desired behavior of a program).
However, programming is a bit more general than proving: Circular proofs are simply of no value, whereas looping programs can still be valuable. For instance, I for sure hope that the main loop of the browser I'm currently using to fill out this textbox does not prematurely stop.
That only exists in theoretical computer science. In real computer programming, you always have some bounds to the value of A.
programming is more like communicating to a computer to convince them to do some task. has always been like this, and this will not change
I saw a cryptographer interviewed. She was maybe 20yo and was working onboard a US aircraft carrier. Installing and managing cryptographic systems does not make one a cryptographer. Doing math via computer programing also does not make one a mathematician any more than driving a car makes one a mechanic.
I would probably be more inclined to do serious maths now with AI assistance than before without as I'm not good enough to make decent progress. I've long been curious what the renormalization stuff in quantum mechanics is about and how to combine that with gravitation but it's way beyond my brain cells.
He had infinite options he failed to exercise, like getting involved in the humanities (sociology, philosophy, law) and/or community building to do the groundwork necessary to contribute positive change rather than illusionary shortcuts to fruitless impact, needless suffering, and self-destruction.
AGI is a canard. Too much money in electricity, servers, land, and technological advances would be needed to build and operate sufficiently capable digital reasoning. Domain-specific pseudo-intelligence task automation will continue here and there with LLMs, deep learning, and such, but no one is building just one "brain" for less than $5T and it probably wouldn't be very performant.
Current AI is totally incapable of replacing expert human judgment for almost everything because they lack constraints, predictability, and reliability. Also, most models hallucinate worthless, incorrect answers so often that they should be relegated to glorified creative, entertainment, and task-acceleration work for the foreseeable future and not be given wildly-inappropriate power like giving a toddler a nuke. Furthermore, the appeal to LLM authority fallacy is a dangerous trend of unthinking, laziness of people failing to think skeptically and find sources for themselves. Finally, too many laypeople and wild-eyed techbros are projecting and imagining AI capabilities that aren't really there and may never exist, but then making much bigger mistakes of irrational, risky bets on their preconceived conclusions, and telling us we should worship the billionaires, accept layoffs, accept panopticon surveillance, accept their loud, polluting data centers in our literal backyards.. for what good?
I mean this is just obviously and flagrantly untrue, eg. Greta Thunberg became a culture war boogeyman for half of the political spectrum over significantly more moderate views expressed in exactly the way you describe. If anything, acting like a bitch just emboldens the type who cause problems to cause more problems when they see these signs of weakness and zero will to resist them, as we see happening with acts of complete irrationality like Trump making a war against fucking wind turbines a top priority of the US government's agenda.
When you tell people they're protesting the wrong way, you're really just saying "I don't want to hear your complaints. Make them in a way that doesn't bother me so I can ignore them".
If people aren't willing to listen to constructive feedback that maybe they are protesting or evangelizing a cause less effectively than they could be, then that's their ego and stupidity. Sensible people may have mentors and can evaluate feedback from all sources to pick through it for useful bits.
> acting like a bitch
Chill out and take your culture war flame bait elsewhere. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Putting LLMs in the loop now gives you reactive strategies. The agents can see the reaction of the market and adjust or change direction.
This creates complex feedback loops that can't be understood at human speed.
What makes you say this?
Another angle is excuses for mass layoffs are continuation of the Powell memo neoliberalism agenda of suppressing wages by keep workers desperate and partly a consequence of rising interest rates since there's no more free money.
Workers need to stop depending on megacorps for stability and form worker-owned co-ops that compete with and supplant unstable, mercurial megacorps.
His impact has not been fruitless, to the contrary and case in point, we're now discussing about him in here and in other similar places. Had he chosen the lame road of becoming a humanities thingie nothing of his legacy would have remained.