> you will likely put mathematicians out of jobs.
why is that a concern in this context? would you have asked the same about steam engines and horses?
this is a really cool concept, organized very well. and that is very commendable.
why is that a concern in this context? would you have asked the same about steam engines and horses?
this is a really cool concept, organized very well. and that is very commendable.
So the issue isn't so much that LLMs will replace mathematicians, but that AI companies bragging constantly about how their machines "solve math" will convince people who don't understand the value of math research to no longer fund it, or students who don't yet understand why learning math is useful for developing their brains that it's a waste of time. That could put mathematicians out of a job without providing a useful replacement.
Motto: a mathematician's job isn't to solve the Hodge conjecture, it's to understand why the Hodge conjecture is or isn't true, and turn that understanding into something that makes it easier for the next person to grasp/use/enjoy.
LLMs absolutely have the potential to make this job easier, but the way in which these companies are using them right now risks being antithetical to that goal.
do you mean,
> All things AI seems to assume that more and faster is better, but there is no justification of that assumption.
is good argument?
of course faster discovery without human in the loop is better. is that not what humans have been optimizing for the past few thousand years ? faster mobility, faster communication, faster medical recovery etc. everything modern civilization has to offer is because of a rush to get better and faster. for example, discovering penicillin 2 years early would've saved ~15 million people more.
why is that not worthy enough to pursue?