Hacker News Reader

Comment by cagz | Hacker News Reader

I wish this were a document that clearly described how mathematicians expect AI to behave, rather than how it is misaligned. I can kind of decipher the expectation from the declaration, but it still sounds a bit like "it would be better if AI didn't meddle with mathematics", instead of "we want AI to approach problems like this and that way".

View on HN

They want the AI labs to stop solving "important" math problems so that humans can do it, on the theory that when AI solves "important" math problems, it robs humans of the opportunity to gain new insights into those problems.

Total horse shit, but that's the essence of it.

The issue is that now that Navier-Stokes is "solved", the amount of resources put into researching it will be reduced, meaning that the insights and knowledge that would have come out of even failed attempts will never be.

An "unsolved problem" as a beacon to strive towards, gaining understanding along the way. With the beacon dead, noone will strive.

Funding agencies will have to adapt too, the community will have to adapt. Hiring committees will have to adapt. Everyone will have to adapt. They will have to rethink their criteria and adapt to reality. It's not at all guaranteed that this beacon interpretation will remain how people understand where to put resources. Yes, academia can be stiff, rigid, non-adaptive, set in its ways and navel gazing. But it's a wakeup call. Let's see.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com