'I'm on a War Footing': Terry Tao and the Crisis in Math

14 pointsposted 9 hours ago
by ent101
(nytimes.com)

7 Comments

qarl

7 hours ago

[flagged]

smadge

6 hours ago

Pure math isn’t an economic activity so the benefit to society of automating it is dubious. Its goal is to expand the frontier of human understanding and communicate the understanding to other mathematicians. As the article states it’s more like an art than engineering (where the attitude of who cares if I understand it if it works is more justified). The AI generated proofs are barely comprehensible by mathematicians so the question is who are these proofs for? Who are they trying to convince or educate?

qarl

6 hours ago

> Pure math isn’t an economic activity

Um. There are applications of mathematics that have a practical effect on the world. Right? You've crossed a bridge before, have you not?

And what is your solution then - only certain people will be allowed to work on math? If I use a computer to solve a math problem I will be a criminal? The whole thing is profoundly wrong-headed.

> Its goal is to expand the frontier of human understanding

Yes, and it does that quite nicely.

> The AI generated proofs are barely comprehensible by mathematicians

My understanding is that if you ask an AI to explain it to you it's quite easy to follow. But apparently that solution is intolerable for some.

TFNA

5 hours ago

"Pure math" is a distinct term and it refers precisely to the myriad branches of mathematics that don't have a straightforward practical application like building bridges. Many branches of mathematics get pretty far out there from real-world concerns and serve largely to satisfy the human desire for merely expanded understanding.

qarl

24 minutes ago

[dead]