Edit history

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community.

It’s not common knowledge, but mathematical proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them. They are valuable because they create a mathematical community, not the other way around.

Scientific discoveries are different. Scientific insights without scientists are still useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community.

It’s not common knowledge, but mathematical proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them. They are valuable because they create a mathematical community, not the other way around.

Scientific discoveries are different. Scientific insights without scientists is still useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community.

It’s not common knowledge, but mathematical proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them. They are valuable because they create a mathematical community, not the other way around.

Scientific discoveries are different. Scientific insights without scientists is still useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community.

It’s not common knowledge, but mathematical proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists are still useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists are still useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community, and we are about to see a sharp decline in math PhDs.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists are still useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community, and we are about to see a sharp decline in math PhDs.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them. Destroying that community is game over.

Scientific discoveries without scientists are still be useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet. These discussions have been prevalent across the maths community, and we are about to see a sharp decline in math majors.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them. Destroying that community is game over.

Scientific discoveries without scientists are still be useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet: pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped, and you can see why.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of the mathematical community capable of deriving them. Destroying that community is game over.

Scientific discoveries without scientists are still be useful to society. Not so mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet: pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped, and you can see why.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable (useful in any way whatsoever) outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them. Destroying that community is game over.

Scientific discoveries without scientists could still be useful to society. Not so about mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao and some of the top mathematicians on the planet: pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped, and you can see why.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists could still be pretty useful to society. Not so about mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet: pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped, and you can see why.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists could still be pretty useful to society. Not so about mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet): pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped, and you can see why.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists could still be pretty useful to society. Not so about mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually paraphrasing Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet): pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped, and you can see why.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists could still be pretty useful to society. Not so about mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually quoting Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet): pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped, and you can see why.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists could still be pretty useful to society. Not so about mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually quoting Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet): pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas with each other, particularly about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped. And you can see why. The result is the destruction of the mathematical communities that are the reason we do proofs at all.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

Scientific discoveries without scientists could still be pretty useful. Not so about mathematical proofs without mathematicians.

I’m actually quoting Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet): pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas with each other, particularly about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped. And you can see why. The result is the destruction of the mathematical communities that are the reason we do proofs at all.

Non-mathematicians don’t realize this, but proofs aren’t intrinsically valuable outside of what they mean about the community capable of creating them.

I’m actually quoting Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet): pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas with each other, particularly about their work. Now they are increasingly afraid of getting scooped.

And you can see why.

I’m actually quoting Terence Tao (and many of the top mathematicians on the planet): pre-AI, math researchers discussed and shared ideas with each other, particularly about their work. Now they are afraid of getting scooped.