Hacker News Reader

Comment by david-gpu | Hacker News Reader

My opinion is that the field will adapt. AI will not spell doom for mathematics. On the contrary, it is the beginning of a new era. Math is having its Deep Fritz moment, just as computer science is going through the same.

Some folks are struggling to adapt to this change. Tao actually sounds like he is doing alright compared to most, even if some of his arguments seem a bit weak, as I alluded to in other comments in this thread.

Hopefully it makes some sense. And if it doesn't, at least we had a nice chat.

View on HN

Haha yes I imagine we all know your opinion is something like that! But isn't it much more fruitful and interesting to form an argument for it? If he is still in the context here: is there something about Baudelaire's critique you were discussing originally that has helped you arrive at this opinion? Do you think he is wrong? Or is he right, but providing the right kind of nuance that we need in order to cope with the revolutionary changes? Genuinely curious!

> But isn't it much more fruitful and interesting to form an argument for it? If he is still in the context here: is there something about Baudelaire's critique you were discussing originally that has helped you arrive at this opinion?

The historical record. That's why I am drawing some lose parallels with Badulaire. Incumbents being unhappy about a disruptive technology, lashing against the early adopters, and fearing that it signifies the end of their craft, when in reality it's just a period of change and adaptation. Without the advent of photography we would not have Impressionism nor all the movements through the 20th century. Photography forced painters to reinvent themselves, and LLMs will force mathematicians to do the same.

I thought the historical examples of photography and chess engines would be enough for people to connect the dots, but apparently not.

Sure, but then it's kinda less that you're making an argument here one way or another, and more of just an appeal, right? Like its just broad strokes? The inherent actual qualities of photography aren't supposed to parallel anything with the LLM case other than just the bare fact of being a new technology at one point?

I guess I am sorry for pushing, I felt like maybe there was going to be something more specific to the point.

I think one thing to keep in mind in the future is that for every Baudelaire, there is a Benjamin or Italian futurist saying the exact opposite! Its not like the fear of photography was a monolithic, shared thing, even at the time. Just, it's not so straightforward to have the "historical record" speak exactly one narrative, and unless you are a full-on technological determinist (is anyone these days?), you can't really conclude anything from the past like this.

> I thought the historical examples of photography and chess engines would be enough for people to connect the dots, but apparently not.

You're just an overconfident idiot who thinks that because there is an analogy along one dimension of a absurdly complex problem you've somehow arrived at a superior truth.

I repeat, this is an incredibly complex situation in which no one fully understands what's going on. The letter is simply asking for greater awareness of the implications of what AI companies are doing, they're not even saying that AI is bad!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com