And remember, these AI models were trained on your work, your culmination of effort and sacrifice, without any consent, credit, or compensation, then sold back to you for a subscription fee.

> You are made one step closer to complete worthlessness, which will surely continue as AI becomes a more satisfying personal companion, a more worthwhile friend, lover, etc.

I recently thought about this and fear that AI may further drive us humans apart.

Instead of working with humans, I increasingly work with a fleet of agents.

It's more or less reverse to the mean. The period in which a people had both access to education and leverage through their labor and intellect is super short. For most of recorded history, the bulk of humanity lived as peasants, serfs, or slaves. They were mostly illiterate, bound to the land or to a master, and had little power to bargain over the terms of their (or their children) lives.

> the notion of the thing that grants you status, prestige, and a living wage being commodified would spark in anyone a profound sense of dread.

Not for those without status (which is most people on this planet). But yes, AI is set to wipe out most established hierarchies and their gatekeepers, and to equalize most fields. A profound sense of dread is something most ordinary people live with throughout life, and if AI can reduce systemic unfairness, I bet most people will actually find some degree of relief from that dread. The complacency of the formerly-statused being shocked along the way isn't much of an argument against that equalization.

> Beyond just making you redundant in your job, the whole architecture of your existence, the thousands of hours of struggle, the sacrifice of putting off social games or personal enjoyment are now rendered moot in hindsight.

This passage answers itself, doesn't it? You can sense those things you postponed fun for (work and the apparatus around its struggle) were never worth it. So why fight for us all to have to keep working just to live? Isn't a post-scarcity world the thing we should all be fighting for?

I think the fix is to get started on post scarcity economics now. Sooner or later we're going to have to come up with practices that boost or limit endeavors based on how people feel about them, rather than based on how much money somebody has.

It doesn't have to be ((post scarcity) economics), it can be (post (scarcity economics)). Both systems can coexist for a while, one providing a bit of a safety net while the other falls apart.

It's mainly about status. No one cares that much about AI automating drug discovery or coding, but it's bad when it assists in math. Math results are attached to individuals , whereas for cancer drugs or other medical discoveries, it's more of a team effort by a lab. AI now has the effect of turning math into something that is more lab-like and less about the individual.

I would answer to this that the mathematicians (humans) are the ones who give any meaning to mathematical discoveries. If we don't have mathematicians anymore, the result is that AI can find whatever they want, but 99% of that will be useless waste. Outside of practical applications, the only reason most mathematical results have any interest is that lots of mathematicians spend time trying to find their solution. Once humans stop caring, mathematics done in an automated fashion will also stop having any value, other than its possible use in finding solutions to existing engineering problems.

We'll be free of cancer, and dead on the inside.

Counter point: AI is trained on output from humans. We all made AI, together. It belongs to all of us. We use it to benefit us, and we celebrate our wins together.

When I was a kid I built my entire identity around being #1. I was the most talented kid in school, anything endangering that resulted in an instant identity crisis.

Then I went to college and I understood that there are people who, for one reason or another, are thinking in ways so advanced I'll never catch up. I'll never be the #1. I'm actually much closer to being average than I thought.

But this doesn't mean I should just give up, lie down in my bed and cry. Since then I've learned a lot of skills - most of them being crap at best, but that's not the point. What matters is my own subjective experience. The fact that despite objectively not being good, I see myself as a skilled person with rich life.

Once I was watching a YouTube video about elderly care and there was a phrase along "These people won't achieve anything more in their lives, my goal is to keep them occupied until they die" which is a bit morbid at first glance, but it actually makes so much sense as a life philosophy.

The only thing constant in life is change.

> You are made one step closer to complete worthlessness

And so the idea that your worth is the monetary amount of your labor compensation becomes even more toxic than before.

Unfortunately, I think this is a human failing being exposed rather than anything else. We like to build conceptual models of how things work, but they are often tinged with should. Reality doesn't care how things should work. It only cares about how things do work. It's always jarring when the should turns out to be false.

Philosophers for millenia believed that human beings had meaning, purpose and set out to explore what that could be. It was a noble profession for a long time. Once we realized that there was no hidden spark, ergo no purpose, the study of and the prestige associated with philosophy took a nosedive. Yes it is still studied but it carries nowhere near the respect it once did. Mathematics seems to be suffering the same fate.

The next status wave will be fitness as glp1 drugs filter through to everyone and everyone wants to be fit.

Yes, and I think over time there will be a blatant inequality in who is commoditized and who isn’t.

If AI engineers didn’t create the data to produce the models, and they increasingly don’t write the code to produce the models either, then why are they treated as the agents of change rather than the subjects of change, like mathematicians are?

Nah. There is nothing beyond being made redundant in your job and labor leverage. That is all. It has got nothing to do with resentment over fucking machines. It’s all about people (the executives that you mention) fucking us over. The end. Completely human problem.

I know I’m being sold some bullshit when this is made into something inherently existential and psycho-identitarian. An egalitarian future of labor-worthlessness means that there is nothing above us to dictate anything at all—maybe not even nature itself, save for meteors and other cosmic events. I’m not afraid of being “worthless” in that world of complete freedom. Fuck no.

You are made one step closer to complete worthlessness

Nobody's worth is tied to source code output.

85% of people hate their jobs and just want to spend time with their family and friends. Utilitarianly, AGI is a benefit for the vast majority of people. And people who get their pride from playing status games are about to learn what it feels like to be on the other side

Maybe I'm too doomer, but if a large portion of the population becomes economically worthless, how can this not have a destructive effect on society? It would be easier for anyone with power if you wouldn't exist. How would that not lead to corrosion of basic human rights (or worse) and the spawn of a new permanent underclass which you cannot escape from? It sounds very dystopian but if AI is left unchecked this will happen imo.

For me the most obvious conclusion is, use your maths skills and get into open source AI.

Make AI as cheap and accessible to as many people as possible and we will likely be much better off.

The more people empowered by the tech the less like you will be “redundant” in the way you describe. You will own the important tools only the techno oligarchy own today…

Would you feel the same if you were a part owner of OpenAI? I bet you’d feel excited about the money you’re about to make ?

You know we (tech as an industry) have done this to a bunch of people already, right?

Thats what "disrupt" meant

> bargaining with superintelligence

This part is nonsense, still. There's no known AI -> AGI path, and superintelligence doesn't mean anything, and AGI is assumed to be (going to be) both malicious and a slave, both for no good reason.

“Worthlessness”

Consider this… in the grand scheme of things, we are on a tiny planet in the universe. What cosmic contribution could you make?

Most people won’t make anything even close to “a ding in the universe”, as Steve Jobs has been reported to say.

So they may as well enjoy their life. And your worth can be to your family, to your children, your parents who took care of you.

Learning a hobby. Practicing religion. Mindfulness and meditation. Doing sports and improving your own body.

Look around if you are a heterosexual man, for instance: many women are far more attracted to men that perform in the moment, than men who labor quietly to create a product. The former enables untold hours of honing social skills and calibration, and humor and performance skills. The latter is of more durable value to society, yet relatively few women are genuinely sexually attracted to a man doing the deep work. (By the way, it is also true the other way: most men are not attracted to women for doing deep work or being a rocket scientist.)

Animals don’t do “deep work” and most animals are attracted for far “shallower” reasons. If everyone has a UBI and AI does the “deep work” then that frees up humans to be like animals in a zoo or in the wild… doing all the displays to attract mates, having babies etc. That’s not nothing — in fact it is 99.999% of everything that happened in history and 100% of what happened in prehistory.

You’re just ceding that 0.0001% which represents technological progress. The actual dread comes from the fact that you and all of humanity will be as completely powerless to change things as cats or any random animal species is powerless now. The difference is you will perhaps understand your powerlessness more than they do. But in the good scenario, you’ll be like animals in a zoo. We are constructing this zoo for ourselves now.

We will remain on this blue planet while the AIs will colonize the universe. In fact I wonder why aliens would ever come to Earth, when they’d just send their AIs or robots. Look at this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46200502

We won't be bargaining with superintelligence, we will be bargaining with the handful of oligarchs that are creating super intelligence to rob us of all bargaining power.

This is why they're talking about it in religious terms. It's their salvation from labor and its demands.

This isn't a passive process that's happening by itself. It is driven by specific people with specific goals.

[dead]

[dead]

> How is one to feel safe in the progress of the future when the only hints of the wonderful post-scarcity utopia we can quantify so far is the removal of all human leverage via their labor?

I'm sure the Telegraph operators, human calculators, mine workers and all sorts of people have asked themselves this question. It's obvious that it feels strange to suddenly be part of the cohort asking but I assure you it's not new. And the answer hasn't changed much since.

> the removal of all human leverage via their labor

I’m not convinced at all that SI will ever be able to produce the correct result with little input. The advancements in capability I’ve seen in models is that they understand my intention better, and follow industry best practices better, so their output is often acceptable. But I absolutely have to make my intentions known, as detailed as possible, or I will get the mediocre, standard solution that falls out of the weights.

I’ve been having trouble with models always steering towards certain solutions - they insert a queue here, a mutex there, a backoff over there. If I remove those, and let the model freely rebase the PR stack, then it will re-insert those mechanisms because it has been specifically trained to do exactly that. It’s essentially boilerplate, smoothly aligning my codebase to match their weights. Which is often good enough! They are training the models well. But individual problems require individual solutions.

My personal take on the human part in all this is: We get to decide, and the models obey. Our decisions are now super leveraged. So let’s make good decisions, and communicate them well. The layer of where decisions yield the most leverage, has been pushed upwards (I see it on the type and function signature level, others will see it even higher), but IMO it won’t be possible to push it up much further without losing truth to the decisions we need to make for a good product.

> I feel like I am mourning something different: the loss of the desire to seek truth in tech, math etc.

This is what I've been feeling too. It feels increasingly like the professional world has become a tower of scams. It's not worth building technical skills or focusing on quality; your boss doesn't know or care what good work looks like, he/she just wants your work to look good enough to his/her boss, who knows even less about the actual work being performed. And everyone reports up to an MBA CEO who was brought in from a completely different industry.

I want to work in an industry where skill, diligence and expertise is rewarded and respected, but from what I'm seeing political ability is 95% of the game and caring too much about the work is a career liability.

I only see the loss of desire from the anti-AI crowd, if they ever had it to begin with.

https://matharena.ai/literature_mistakes/

You today can go into the arxiv and find major errors after a few papers with no formal training. How is that not AMAZING!?

Not sure I agree - they dropped hundreds of papers, most of which were so badly written that they were incomprehensible. If it wasn’t for the lean certificates on 30% of them, the mathematical community would have told them to go and whistle.

I think the consensus here is that most of the papers are effectively correct. But it would take years of study just to understand most of the problem statement - so we have to wait for the mathematical community to digest the borderline-nonsense that OpenAI spewed out.

+1 We need human verification.

It's the ultimate proof of how fashion and religious believe override everything else. It's fashionable now to believe in these unverified fairy tales, and if you don't, you're at best a weirdo who will be "left behind".

It's profit chasing as well as practical - it kneecaps the educated workers increasingly asking questions about the morality of business and technology. It takes away the income that affords them the space to push back, threatens high ed, critical thinking. The salivating over AI makes perfect sense in that context.

> An LLM ... cannot be a real participant

The participant is not an LLM, the participant is a company. The company learns. It adapts. It has a trillion dollars of skin in the game.

> The idea that our ability to create and sustain conceptual systems depends on the give and take of reasons within a social setting.

I read this sentence 5 times and I still cannot parse it.

What a coincidence, I've also picked up inferentialism but never really got into it.

I'm interested in the reversal that Sellars proposes - it seems clear to me that "representation" is not prior to the space of reasons, despite how unintuitive it is.

> An LLM encodes the normative regularities of our linguistic/conceptual games into its weights, but it cannot be a real participant in our games because it is incapable of staking durable commitments or changing its dispositions over time.

I see no reason why this can't be the case in the future, even though I think inferentialist-based theories are generally strong. Can't you force LLM's (or whatever AI architecture will exist in a decade) to stake durable commitments itself, then? They're at least autonomous enough to run computers. I agree that that is a core part to true meaning & autonomy, but nobody just lets them yet. I don't think inferentialism is a consciousness-based argument, either, so that escape hatch isn't available. I also don't think this is a necessary condition to engage in the space of reasons (but maybe then I'm misunderstanding it, or retreating to a more Sellarsian understanding). Could you explain on this more?

Though again, I only have the book sitting on my desk, and I haven't cracked it open...

This sounds super interesting but 477 pages is a beast. Would you recommend anything about this subject thats a bit more approachable?

I think in future, each company will built its own universe of mathematics consisting of prized discoveries. Maybe one Mathematical Universe per Company in the multiverse of mathematics.

Ok what about memory systems though (basically LLM modifies its own RAG context) - that should allow commits and changing dispositions over time?

tbf naming something "deontic" is not helpful

I don't think that's true. Why is it that I see more people using "shaped" and "load bearing"?

It is strange, because in a sense, when you start learning math, you never explore, you are being taught. Now mathematicians were able to exercise curiosity. That is going to change. Back to the ranks of eternal learners if you will. The fun was in the research. Now I think it will leave the door open toward more Applied math. What can people do with all the discoveries. The curiosity will be there. I think it is better that way. It will also put a cap on abstractions that overlaps. In essence, AI is less likely to create new theories, coin new terminology, etc. But it is better suited to recognize emerging patterns. That will probably simplify mathematics. Unless the domain of abstraction is infinite and with each new abstraction comes its own results but I doubt it. Who knows though...

> The story of human discovery and the triumph of the human spirit will soon be excised from this discipline. The Dinitz-Garg-Goemans counterexample was the most egregious demonstration. It revealed that the process of prompting novel proofs will be as auraless as ordering doordash. Watch as magic and mystery evaporate. Watch as the sun sets on our heroic age. Is there not something evil in the act of blocking all future generations of mathematicians from the experience of discovery? Forget about accuracy or even attribution. Something fundamental to the experience of mathematics is being taken.

> You are a helpless onlooker. Before you a channel through which humans have accessed the ineffable and sacred for thousands of years is being sealed for eternity.

https://kirwinhampshire.substack.com/p/the-dark-night-of-mat...

> they may never again have the joy of being the first to pull up the edge of the tarp of ignorance and see the raw truth beneath _for the first time_

Until we can demonstrate AI consciousness, “seeing the raw truth” will be a human activity. Even now, verifying and understanding these AI proofs is a massive endeavor. Coming up with an intuitive (to humans) distillation of the finding remains an open challenging demanding expertise.

That's such a nice way to put it! I recently stumbled into "The Last First- Winter K2"[1] and saw the same spirit along with a similar misguided effort to win without the will, nor capacity to do it — e.g. influencers taking a stab at K2 is like prompting your way to results.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_First:_Winter_K2

Why is not like changing to a different type of vessel for the voyage? Unless and until it is all AI in closed system, could direct machines where to look etc.

> They're now aware that they may never again have the joy of being the first to pull up the edge of the tarp of ignorance...

Not "never again", it would be extremely difficult but science and math are also built on random, trial and error, and intuitions that could not arise from AI.

I'll say it again: AI is capable of answering the questions put to it but AI is not yet capable of knowing which questions are worth asking. Mathematicians have no cause to weep, they will be fine.

[flagged]

"We absolutely understand why it works, if we didn't understand we would not be able to improve these systems" - Understanding how to improve something does not require understanding how it works.

Growing a plant does not imply understanding soil minerals or photosynthesis. Training a dog does not imply understanding it's brain. Using LLMs to improve a codebase does not imply understanding C++. Improving a PC with new parts, does not imply understanding RAM.

You can understand abstractions about the system, without understanding the system. Without gradient descent or other forms of automatic optimisation, do you think humans could build something as capable as GPT-1?

I think they're referring to the fact that neural networks are more or less black boxes. Their internals are blurry and not explainable in the same way that traditional linguistics tries to explain things - with rules.

Of course, ultimately that's because language itself doesn't follow simple rules like linguists would prefer. They're more like guidelines.

> Eventually it will run out of things that it can do with its training and the only way to get it to do more will be training it on new human found knowledge.

How do you know this?

I liked reading an essay by mathematician Nestor Guillen that develops thoughts along these lines - the "convex hull of ideas".

https://birdsnfrogs.github.io/2026/09/12/Felix_qui_potuit_re...

Came here to say this. What AI is doing with math is essentially fuzzing, but looking for valid inputs that solve a problem and the inputs are mathematical abstractions. It's a cool approach, but AI doesn't understand what's going on, and without understanding it won't be able to create the next generation of mathematical abstractions needed for the next generation of proofs.

this is assuming that humans can be original in ways llms won't be, which I doubt will hold true

aren't mathematicians needed to create the problems? Everything solved so far is a question posed by a human. Which is probably why cracking diseases is more difficult (apart from man made viruses :/)

When software engineers spent the last 50 years eliminating the work of clerical, secretarial, and dozens of other back-office functions, were they concerned about how those people would feed their families? Do you think anybody but other software engineers feels any sorrow for them today, now that they are facing the same fate?

There are orders of magnitude fewer mathematicians with full time academic positions than there are software engineers. The economics are different and consequently academia tends to be more slow moving in reacting to market trends. It doesn't mean it isn't coming, but it will look somewhat different

I don't personally grieve for the likes of Strogatz or Tao, it seems likely both of them will be fine however this pans out. But many more mathematicians have been toiling away in precarity and obscurity and without tenure for years and years. And of course many mathematicians went into private sector roles as software engineers, actuaries, analysts, ML engineers and similar, and have been displaced there, too.

And highly visible blog posts written by famous mathematicians with large audiences and closely aligned with the news and hype cycles getting frontpaged on HN doesn't mean that mathematicians are disproportionately whiney, nor that software engineers aren't also writing about their plight or ending up on the front page as well.

To me this goes in the same direction as people not feeling sorry for software developers because our job is supposedly automating the job of other people (which I don't think describes the profession accurately as a whole at all).

Neither sits right with me. Can't we just all collectively acknowledge that we have to grapple with this new piece of technology that either is already or at least seems to be going to be hurtful to a lot of individuals?

Instead of looking at the in comparison limited group of people currently pushing this technology and asking ourselves whether we should be on board with their doing, we look to one another and are happy that someone else is now suffering just the same as we are. What a sad state of affairs.

As a software engineer? The career whose very reason, largely, for existing in this market is to automate jobs, with few notable exceptions? That one is somehow deserving of sympathy and that of mathematicians is not? Come off it. The notion is undignified.

> Software engineers are getting laid off because of advancements made by AI.

The bean counters laying off software engineers ought to take notes from the frontier labs' own hiring practices. They're still hiring lots of humans for business and engineering roles even when they would be better positioned than anyone to automate away those jobs with their world-class models (https://openai.com/careers/search/).

This is a silly analogy, and you're comparing very different entities.

Say you have a friend who likes making music (not professionally - just a hobby).

If an invention came out tomorrow that took the joy completely out of making music, would you respond with "It's hard for me to feel sorry about you."

Just because things suck for you doesn't mean it can't suck for others (in different ways).

It's not about universities, it's about grant funding over the next few years. It is very apt to collapse if AI is more useful than people. Why pay people to find this when tokens will do instead.

Why is it hard ? It's basic empathy.

What does your being software engineer has anything to do with feeling sorry for Mathematicians' job ?

It's a classic "I have it worse than them...everyone should feel sorry for ME and not them".

Software engineers are getting laid off because of the end of zero interest rates, wars started by Putin and Trump, and a bit because of pandemic over hiring. The part that is due to AI is less hiring of juniors. Know your enemy before starting a fight.

What's your source for "Software engineers are getting laid off because of advancements made by AI". I haven't experienced that in my field and can't find any data to support that notion.

Software engineers still can feed their families. The notion that software engineers can not feed families is not consistent with reality.

It’s only been a few months since LLMs started solving significant open problems in math. I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that they have it better than software engineers.

In many ways it will likely be the opposite. Tech firms still need engineers to talk to customers and run experiments. What will the mathematicians be needed for?

> Software engineers are getting laid off because of advancements made by AI.

This is said by a lot of CEOs trying to make layoffs look good, but I haven’t seen anything that suggests that it’s true.

> Yet I see far more of these blogs about the plight of mathematicians, not enough about the plight of software engineers.

Really?!? We’ve been living through 3 years of blog posts, LinkedIn hot takes, and podcasts talking about the plight of software engineers in the era of AI. There isn’t a week that goes by without an HN post about it.

I can feel empathy for the practitioners in a field that may have been profoundly changed, the same way I can feel empathy toward software engineers who are struggling with the changes in their own field.

In the end, we’re all trying to figure out where this leads. And how this will affect our lives and our work.

The difference is it takes great intelligence to be a mathematician, whereas anyone can be trained to write code. It’s like the difference between an automotive engineer and a mechanic. I would argue writing code takes less skill than carpentry.

Unless this is satire, have you not considered how many proles have been laid off because they were replaced by technology or told that a spreadsheet model had decided their job was superfluous? Capitalism has been using technology to fond new ways to enrich itself for the whole age of personal computing, and arguably long before. Those Andreesen Horowitz comments about 'software eating the world' may have been exciting to people working at startups, but came off as rather sinister to people who were in the world outside softwareand just wanted to build a modest but comfortable life rather than develop unicorns and cash out.

[flagged]

> In the future, you will go to a special dental imaging facility where a modestly-compensated technician images your whole mouth and feeds the results into an AI system, and when you get home you can look at the assessment and chat with the AI about it. Then you can potentially go visit a dentist, oral surgeon, etc, if you actually need work. This system will produce far better dental health outcomes at far lower cost: the diagnoses will be more accurate, and there will be no bias towards additional, unnecessary procedures.

Right up until the sellers of dental supplies find a way to...

Indirectly influence model training to increase the frequency with which models recommend dental work and/or lower the bar for what they determine to be "necessary"...

or...

Directly influence model recommendations by paying model providers (who will be happy to take that money).

The point being that models (and particularly the humans that control them) are presumably just as corruptible as the humans they are replacing.

No one wants that. People pay other people to do things well. No one wants to need to discuss orthodontics with a bot, they would rather pay someone to know those things and think about them.

Great idea! It’ll work just like how Realpage helps people: https://hn.algolia.com/?q=realpage

I think the point is that in the "age of AI" virtually nobody will have the opportunity to follow a career and produce works like Strogatz was able to do.

It's really a fascinating book and topic. And i too enjoy appreciating it. I guess it's appreciating the beauty of nature and as you said, AI will not be able to threaten that.

I'm no mathematician, but my impression as someone who at least does a lot of applied work with maths is that the main thing that's changed is that the yardstick by which academics earn recognition is being re-assessed.

But from my perspective proofs have never been the most interesting part of maths. What really interests me is the intuition that leads to new applications, and to new questions. Newton, for example, gets more credit for calculus than Leibniz because he's the one who demonstrated how darned useful it is. Erdos is arguably more famous for asking interesting questions than for answering them.

I still don't see LLMs seriously contributing to that facet of mathematics any time soon. Every so often I ask one to suggest a good binomial confidence interval for a particular application, and it still tends to just suggest one of the subpar options that everyone learns in a first year stats course.

I’m on your side on this overall, I think. And I suspect we’d agree more than disagree on nuances. But saying that ‘nothing has changed’ is very obviously wrong.

Go apply for some jobs. You’ll quickly come to the realization that something has changed.

And this is only the beginning.

The fear is the sales pitch. AI has some uses but nowhere near enough to justify the price tag, so we need something more to sell it.

Re depression: Seems like it is not just HN... You say nothing changed. Maybe that's even true.

But many people perceive this very differently, see link below. And perception is reality after all.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50093180

The doom posts will continue until profits are up.

Jokes aside, its like working for a company, individually you can lift mountains and someone else will take credit. When you use LLMs for a single bit, all credit goes to LLMs lol

> Math is not solved nor has the human been kicked out of the loop. Same with programming.

Is it like Chess and Go? There are still plenty of people playing for fun, but the machines are better at it than we are.

yeah nothing changed in math. mathematicians are weeping for some strange reason (maybe paid by OpenAI to weep?). And Terry Tao is posting blogs on AI + Mathematics because he was bored (or because he was also paid by OpenAI).

This was the top comments when the submission disappeared from the front page.

Now the thread has been cleaned up and a pro-defeatism comment is the top comment and the submission is on the front page again (I'm not alleging moderator intervention, user mechanisms are sufficient).

> One doomer post per day to keep the valuations up.

Wow that's very well worded.

It's probably because with the release of each model it is becoming more and more difficult to see how a person's livelihood and way of life continues. Uncertainty stacked on uncertainty.

How will it pan out, no one really knows. The leading frontier labs are continuing to hire aggressively. But who knows for how long or for long or near-term goals.

I'm sorry, but "nothing has changed in math" is a truly ridiculous statement.

Sure, there are people who overstate things. But that isn't an excuse to keep your head in the sand.

my doomerism isn't about keeping valuations up, it's about tearing it down.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_World_War_II

the above, a "sorting" machine is the primary usage of hyperscalers currently, they're just trying to find new uses to boot for extra money/legitimation.

the browser industry the phone industry the CAs JavaScript

it's all paid for by those wanting to sort humanity into whatever bucket the can fear monger the peasantry into for aweek or however long it takes the classification system to sort out.

gentrification works, but we chose forcible displacement now we have to live with the forever consequences.

would you give guns and bombs to the displaced native americans who taste blood over their beads and trinkets?

we've been inside the event horizon of the singularity for years, the tax bill will only get worse unless we recognize it for the tick that it is.

> One doomer post per day to keep the valuations up.

Yes, outsiders (investors, journalists) are given a false impression while insiders (software engineers) are supposed to give up. Double win for the agitprop machine.

[flagged]

The following certainly does not describe all mathematics or all LLM operations, but its my mental model for why LLMs are so effective in several fields.

Lots of mathematics entails recognizing that a tool/techniques that works in one area can be adapted to a completely different problem. For a human to do this requires having a robust mental model of the technique and the problem itself, and probably having just the "right" mental model to see how they fit together. And we are talking about extremely hard/sophisticated techniques and extremely hard/sophisticated problems, so the ability to deeply appreciate either can require years of study. And on top of that, even if the mathematician has sufficient understanding to develop the intuition that the technique might work, they will need profound fortitude, skill, and patience to see the solution through.

Unlike human mathematicians, who will develop a deep understanding of only a relative handful of techniques and problems in their lifetime, LLMs have ALL written techniques, problems, solutions, etc stored in their internal representations. So when they ably match a problem to a technique, we can imagine the operation as a supercharged autocomplete, or even an extremely proficient search engine. Their stroke of genius is really a consequence of capacity, moreso than cleverness.

They have access to a much larger corpus of information than any single human can manage in his one brain. No human mathematician reads all the papers and has perfect recall on them. The answers have always been there, but no individual has been able to make all the right connections to pull them together and formalize a new discovery or proof.

> Is it that they were able to deduce the solution by examining all current data sets? Or simply brute force it until the produced solution passed all necessary tests?

Yes, both of these + an infinite token/compute budget and SOTA+ models. It's not like some hobbyist out in the woods with a GPU running Qwen 27B can do this.

Because the "glorified autocomplete" crowd likes to ignore the technical detail of how the autocomplete actually works.

[dead]

I don't know what's happening exactly, but I am genuinely astonished how little people seem to care about people losing something real, dismissing it as "bruised egos", using petty terms like "whining" and "crying", or calling them some insult for the crime of being angry or sad for having a big chunk of their life pulled out from under them. I'm referring to the big picture of common talking points, not just this case.

I guess I'm not astonished that people are so bad to each other in general, but more that in the case of genAI it's so prevalent in places that seemed more elevated previously.

Part of me wonders if this is actually a form of self-defense. The misery of others can provoke sympathy or the opposite: Angry pushback to protect oneself from dwelling on their misery.

The doom and mourning is that it's no longer their craft. Their involvement is on the threshold of no longer being useful. What does it mean for humans when the best their involvement accomplish is slowing down progress?

It's the abject lack of shame that gets to me.

None of them have pointed to any of the solutions and said "this is real innovation" - because it's all been mining existing ideas and applying them elsewhere.

Imagine you spend years working on a solution to one of these problems. Only to realize after you publish that more than half your answer already existed in another branch of mathematics and you spent a bunch of time re-inventing it.

Yes the first big solve by OAI was "stolen" and that is tragic, and pretty bad. But it looks like this new batch, the one people are crying about, has none of that stink.

There was an interesting passage in the article:

> Today, the mathematicians are weeping, because the machine smashed their tower first. But tomorrow, it may be the physicists, the economists, the illustrators, or the writers who weep over their fallen blocks.

Isn't it extraordinary that these models still can't write well? I mean, they write passably well, but they all have a highly characteristic style that you can spot from a mile away. These language models can crack the toughest open problems in math, but they haven't yet cracked human-like writing, especially long-form writing, without exposing themselves. This is very very odd, IMO.

If you work in a nursing home it can pay your bills. Is it so far fetched that that kind of work might see a much needed status lift post-ASI?

This is the best attitude to have about the current state. Unless you have some dramatically different sensible solution (and you probably don't when it comes to technology, because it seems to spread for reasons that would eliminate other sensible solutions) that will catch on and take over and replace AI: it's going to continue to mature as long as it's mostly useful to everyone. And AI isn't even a new industry, it has been maturing for quite a while, which adds more weight to the argument that having an attitude that adapts to technology (unless you wish to go solo) is a 'better' fit.

The dramatic solution can never be: 'we should all just want to do it this way because it felt better to me'. That never seems to work, from what I've seen. So there is a lot of public discourse, arguing, to determine if 'doing things the old way' is perhaps more better. And if not, maybe we just shed a tear and move on (to look for a better fit).

> I know more math now than in any point in my life because I want to understand how LLMs work

The implication here is that you wasted your time learning that math, and the fact you learned that will not actually help you contribute to anything.

Now maybe you are closer to understanding the feelings expressed in the article?

It was really quick. I stumbled across a comment from KConrad on MathOverflow on how useless AI was for research. That comment was from 2024. When it disproved the unit distance conjecture in May, the solution involved a breath of knowledge of the literature that it made sense it took a computer to make the connection. It only took 5 months for it to advance to the point that it was better than humans at almost everything. Even if you expected it, the mind boggles at how fast it was.

Also, it's impossible to really know how you're going to react to something until it happens to you. When ChatGPT came out, I already thought "in the long run they're going to automate almost everything humans love to do". Despite having 4 years to brood about it, I did not really know what it would feel like until it happened to me directly.

I saw it coming since reading Kurzweil in high school and it's still heavy.

I just had a chance to flinch first.

A blip for NLP? What bespoke NLP research is about anything other than LLMs these days? How many companies are handcrafting bespoke NLP models instead of sending a LLM request? Really confused here.

I’m not sure I’m following… because as I understand it NLP is basically solved now (with transformer LLMs). No?

What a buzzword filled nonsensical post.

Programmers, artists, anyone who used to create any form of documentation, translators, there are literally so many.

Either these mathematicians thought it would never come for their jobs, because all of these other jobs were simpler or they've been living under a rock.

Either way, I don't feel for them any more than I do for all of humanity.

> My friend, who is a math professor, told me that they weep because they are about to become just like us developers: prompt writers and AI output reviewers.

If it was about understanding interesting proofs that some AI came up with, and extracting their essence, I don't think the situation would be so bad.

I see the much larger problem in the now existing career prospects of non-tenured researchers in mathematics. Everybody know how precarious the career prospects in academia and how precarious often the non-tenured positions in academia already are. With the new AI breakthroughs in math, these have in my opinion even worsened a lot.

UPDATE: For a related point, see also pixl97's post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50104145

Jobs and money are bottom of pyramid needs. If we answer those with UBI I guarantee you status and purpose are the next ones.

Chess players vs stockfish isn't a good comparison because chess fans only care about the performance of maybe the top-50 players.

People may gain and be satisfied among their own peer groups. All good and healthy if that peer group is your local badminton club or knitting circle - something where effort and skill have rewards and people can make objective, tangible progress. But groups not oriented around such activities could turn even more toxic.

"I can’t solve these things, but maybe you people in the future can stand on my shoulders."

Seeing AI being lauded for solving problems like this makes me feel... uncomfortable.

We are feeding all works of the giants that we have all stood on into a huge vat, in the hope to generate something meaningful.

If we can't understand the output, internalize it, or build from the time and experience that a human would have gained from solving the same problem, it feels like a dead end.

When all the problems have been "solved" by AI, what's next? If humans no longer struggle to solve the problems that the previous generation have left behind, how do we progress?

Development is more interesting, I agree, but also more burnout inducing, and the not yet understood implications create unreasonable expectations on developers. It will take some time to find the new normal. Right now me and every colleague are working harder than ever and drowning in tasks. Far from being redundant.

People need to separate out the alien intelligence vs human intelligence.

Its easy to demonstrate this: The math hysteria passes Lean but no human can make sense of it at present. This is akin to bots telling humans where to dig. Thats fine but lets be clear about whats going on.

Your assessment is depressing -- the thing that makes us special has gone from "thinking", "curiosity", "understanding the world" to "we don't kill each other when gathered in a stadium".

What new ways of thinking are you developing?

> Until AI gets good at digging large circular holes in the in the ground, I think Experimental Physics is safe.

Are the experimental physicists usually the ones holding the shovels?

Maybe math is more like a science now, though? It's as if ancient astronomers saw the results from a modern telescope. "Why even look at the sky anymore," they might ask. "And we don't even own the telescope!"

Maybe the answer is to look into how Big Science works? There's still plenty of work to be done figuring out what to do with the outputs from these new math-observing instruments.

I had visions of large automated warehouses full of chemical and biological components hooked up to science machines to do everything from mixing, boiling and printing to spectrograph and robotic assembly. Smart computers and humans would pick the experiments to brute force with exact billing.

For many people, the answer to 1 is yes. You maybe happy with our future where we putter around aimlessly as consumers, but some people want to live in a world where they can at least try to do something that matters. Virtually every professional mathematician is motivated by personally making a permanent contribution to human knowledge, no matter how small.

There is no reality in which everyone gets their basic needs (food, roof, health) without a job.

heck, we have the resources to that now but we don't do it.

I’d be okay with UBI and hobby intellectual work for the rest of my life. But I’m not a mathematician. Many of them probably have more of their identities tied up with their cognitive abilities and social standing.

The dump from OpenAI seems to be the opposite: huge, messy, and incomprehensible, and taken seriously only because of Lean.

Math papers were hard to comprehend well before AI. This is hardly new. For example, here’s a screenshot of a paper from 40 years ago:

https://i.imgur.com/kPFlczp.png

At least with AI, you can download the LaTeX, upload the paper to your favorite LLM, and have it explain the paper at whatever level of granularity you like. That wasn’t possible even two years ago.

I don't think it's the communication that's lost, it's the motivation. People love to collaborate, but they don't always want to waste time doing it.

It's the same reason you see 'no AI' repo labels: only by forcing some standard on the community can the 'old way of collaborating' continue to exist.

There will for sure be new ways of collaborating, and walled off gardens like you suggest, where communication stops and everyone just shares some final product.

But, in some cases the product must be understood (or demonstrated) before value can be derived, and so collaboration will still exist.

Desire, and the 'shape' of collaboration has changed greatly though. Why collaboration has changed, is a completely separate issue related to economy and how each of us spends our time.

The fame from solving the Riemann Hypothesis has not been taken away. It's still open.

> Would doctors weep if cancer is cured by AI?

The pharama and medical PE companies will definitely weep as a source of their income is lost

> Well done, mathematicians. You can now rest from your labors.

well i think the grieving is because they still have to make rent somehow.

> Instead, they chose hubris and self-interest.

Well, you accidentally described a top mathematician before age of 41.

‘Tech’ culture has been getting nastier, more vicious, and more zero-sum for years now. It wasn’t even all that long ago that I remember feeling hurt when a friend of mine sneered about “tech bros.”

But I get it now. I see a certain type of guy in an AWS fleece and instantly judge him, round him off to some kind of bully. Harsh, unsmiling, tweaking on stims, telling you to cry harder. Or maybe he’ll open up tell you his theory of how we need eugenic breeding facilities on the moon, or which countries we need to “glass.” It’s gotten so ugly.

I know this seems mean, too. Coming out of nowhere. Strawmanning or whatever you call it. Literally inventing a guy to get mad at. I’m aware of the irony. I don’t know. I guess it’s another kind of mourning, and I don’t know how to express it. I thought tech people were supposed to be like Woz.

The interesting answer is we don't know. Many of the math problems that make our computers efficient were developed hundreds of years ago with nothing we could do with them.

It is mostly impossible to figure out what we find when we solve these problems. But occasionally they'll lead to real world efficiency in algorithms we use and it changes the world.

> I have little sympathy, since I think it is a result of many decades of complacency when it comes to thinking about why want to people do what they do and instead just enjoying being the ones with the results and money.

It's not clear from your comment: Are you talking about math professors?

If so, what money? They make a living, but it's not that great. I just checked the salary of two associate professors at my university: $80-85K.

And keep in mind they often start their careers quite late. Often multiple postdocs after PhD. Starting a tenure track position in your mid 30's is not common.

> I'm more shocked that there are so many brilliant people who are so results-oriented and don't even have a concept of value outside of that. I'm kind of disgusted by the tears actually

The whole point of the article is that the person crying is because he loves the process and is worried the human connection will be gone.

This is exactly my perspective as well. Seeing humans as inherently valuable is the key. It's shocking to me that so many people seem to have been reducing humans to the results they are able to produce and now that the results appear to be drying up, their perception of their own human value is going down with it.

Your loved ones have replaced you with more agreeable robots. Now no one cares whether you live or die.

Still disgusted?

I don't really like this comment I made. I was tired and I tried to make an analogy with phlogiston for what seems like a pushed portrayal of AI as being, well, some kind of "super intelligence." But the kind of person that might try to "make fetch happen" with "super intelligence" is very different from, say, J. J. Becher theorizing about the mechanism with the hope of understanding it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._J._Becher . Phlogiston wasn't a marketing term bordering on propaganda, but rather a theory before good measurement was available. It's more like someone today trying to guess what may have existed before the big bang, there is no known measurement for that, but for something that was staring people in the face nearly daily: fire.

I mean, it kind of works, in that AI is doing neat things and terrible things and it's staring people in the face all the time--except in this case because the tech monopolies force it on us. So people will want to make explanations. But there was no Big Fire that wanted us to buy more fire-making products and thus would be incentivized to come up with, say, "fire works by using your magical spirit and you get closer to heaven with each fire you set with our fire products, buy our fire products, or rather, let us keep pushing all competition for warming one's self via political corruption allowing our monopolies to exist."

Nonetheless, I do think there's something to be gained with the idea of a billion toddlers looking at mammograms, and the lack of measurement that underlay phlogiston.

First of all, I don't know if I ethically should be using the term "toddler." I heard Coxon use it. Frankly, I don't trust him. I won't trust him until he starts saying /prominently/ that people at tech companies should be liable for breaking laws that already exist and accountability is the bigger problem. Corporations already could do dangerous stuff with biology, weapons, bioweapons or the like, it's not complicated. You do dangerous stuff, you should be held accountable. Why are we farting around wondering if some bio-engineered virus that was released by some corporation could replicate on its own, when we should be say "yo, some organization released a virus on people, why are the people at the top of this organization not getting arrested or something?" I'll admit it might be an "or something" and not "arrested," but it sure looks like nothing is happening--because that's what usually happens when the sufficiently rich do something really bad. No accountability. If Coxon is going to use talking points (and I suspect he is) it should be the very first talking point Coxon or anyone else uses--otherwise I don't trust them.

But let's use "toddlers." A billion toddlers started to get right on mammograms being cancerous or not, but being toddlers they can't really articulate why.

One toddler notices he gets his marshmallow for being right when he notices the pictures are not "shiny." What does that mean? He can't explain it, but it turns out he noticed that some images were made at a lower resolution or otherwise fuzzy because it was older/cheaper tech. And who uses that? People who are poor in poor areas. And turns out, poorer people from poorer areas don't bother to come to the doctor until it's an advanced problem, because they can't afford to come in otherwise (because, say, it's America and American healthcare is broken). And sure enough, those people are more likely to have cancer.

One notices there's more white stuff in some places and dark stuff in another place, not always the same place, but kind of similarly. They say "it's um got that white stuff dark stuff thing." It turns out that's just a reflection of something that happens when the patient is richer or poorer, and again richer people have more chance of false positive because they have the luxury of getting checked more often.

One notices they are more "squishy". That's because radiologist in socioeconomically better areas have a different technique... And so forth.

And, then to make it worse, most toddlers are so inarticulate they can't even say "shiny" or "squishy," so you can't get any information out of them.

That inability to articulate is kind of like the inability to measure, the inability to see the importance of mass in the air, per this: "Phlogiston remained the dominant theory until the 1770s when Antoine-Laurent de Lavoisier showed that combustion requires a gas that has mass (specifically, oxygen) and could be measured by means of weighing closed vessels."

So, it kind of works as an analogy that way, but--again--it's a bit messy.

This comment isn't much better, but I love to dig deeper into my holes.

> gatekeepers bemoaning their gates being blasted off the hinges.

i think that's 85% of the response from software devs if not more. All of the devs I know who actually like to build have embraced AI and the new capabilities that come with it. The ones that guarded their little corner of code proclaiming only they, and their inner circle, have the power to comprehend it are the ones crying in the corner.

Broken take, with out this trail of mathematics that lead us here we'd have never reached this place. You think multi dimensional matrix math comes natively to humans?

At worst its time is past, but even that is unlikely.