Hacker News Reader

Comment by vouaobrasil | Hacker News Reader

The problem here is that AI isn't just a problem, it also revealed a problem: too much emphasis on publishing papers and churning out new results. The name of the game right now is just that: make something new and significant. AI itelf is a problem around the world right now because we've set up some seriously bad incentives. Same with art - it devolved into content creation for money, so AI snaps that up.

What we need to do is make mathematics about understanding, rather than churning out results. People should be rewarded for reaching an ability to explain mathematics without the aid of computers, to teach people for the sake of their learning.

I do think AI also needs to be eradicated because of its destructive properties, but I think that at the same time it also is a manifestation of the sickness in our society to go after the wrong incentives that are detrimental in the long run.

View on HN

> I do think AI also needs to be eradicated

I wonder how life was while the Butlerian Jihad was raging through the universe.

Jihadis were fighting opponents with thinking machines. Did they win because the machines were not capable enough?

The idea that this genie is going back in the bottle is, imo, very wishful thinking. The thinking machines can rip off your software ideas completely, in days.

This. The value of intelligence and execution is plummeting towards zero for knowledge work. Right now, software and mathematics are the most affected, but the transition to every other industry is going to happen with shocking speed.

It actually won't. Math/Coding feedback loop is closed and can be automated, most other knowledge work can't.

Automated spreadsheets and PPTs won't get people fired.

We routinely close the feedback loop when training people in pretty much every industry. Otherwise, what would you say that exams and accreditation/chartering are? I don't see anything inherent in other knowledge work that means AI couldn't do it.

I respect your opinion, and I was with you all the way until your last sentence.

"Eradicated" is a pretty strong word. It's also completely unfeasible.

Wrong incentives can maybe be adjusted for. Shutting down the pursuit of one of the most astonishing things we've ever created is simply not going to happen short of a cataclysm, and I'm not a big fan of those.

True, eradicated is a strong word and I do think it should be. And as horrible as a cataclysm is, I think it's still going to be less pain for humanity than going forward with this tech.

> The problem here is that AI isn't just a problem, it also revealed a problem: too much emphasis on publishing papers and churning out new results.

I wonder how it revealed it... oh, right, because AI labs rushed to churn out new results for marketing purposes. Mathematicians didn't make them do it. So I'm not sure it's really an indictment of the field.

In fact, how often does mathematics feature in university press releases, how often do mathematicians compete for multi-million grants, how many of them are interviewed on TV?... This discipline is less afflicted by weird incentives than most other fields. It's mostly just a small clique of nerds publishing abstract "open source" work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com