Replying to @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
I provided a link. Are you… not able to read?
What do you think I mean by “valuable” and why would that equal “getting a check”?
Fucking bizarre. This might be the dumbest conversation I’ve participated in this week.
Replying to @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
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.
Replying to @givesomefucks@lemmy.world
Solving math proofs with AI is like doing art with AI. Pointless. In fact, it is detrimental to the discipline as a whole, because doing so means people will stop sharing work and insights with each other, which has never been the case before (at least it’s not the norm).
As discussed on MathandAI.org and elsewhere, top mathematicians “disseminate ideas in talks, private discussions and careful writeups, connecting them to the previous ideas of others. These processes invariably take time and are based on human interaction.”
AI is undermining this process, as people naturally become less willing to discuss ideas that can easily be stolen.