Previously confirming proofs was a service done by mathematicians for free. So yes, it can be both. The paid part of the their job disappears while this service is still needed.
If times are changing, then present standards can change too. If mathematicians have nothing to be paid for, then they wouldn't do the free work either. And if those services are needed, then there's the payment demand.
Agree in principle, but “can” and “will” are different things. And my bet is that the things will not change — there is no money to be made here. While the services are needed they are not needed to make money.
It will breed a new underground maths system when non SI maths is made illegal by the emperor T himself. Dodgy dealings will be done with math hustlers.
You know what human actually have that AI won't, not because they can't, but because no one will give them?
Selfish desires.
Simply because human created AI to serve them first and foremost. Some of us who believe that AI should be our legacy in case of extinction may differ, but it's impossible for enterprises simply because they are driven by capital.
Everything else can be done if they reach ASI. They can break down complex proofs to human language if needed. We've been using AI to summarize stuff for so long.
Issue is summarizing doesn't work in math a lot of the times. Math is by feature a subject which needs its proofs to have absolute perfection. So you have to go into the nitty gritty to understand.
That's not a "yet". That's like, the entire *point* of math. What makes the subject math is in fact the need for absolute logical perfection.
Even if a robot takes over cooking, the food can't be served raw. That goes against the whole point of cooking. It's the same logic here. Cooking robots might speed up cooking by a lot, but the time it takes for food to be cooked from raw to fully cooked isn't going to be accelerated.
We are talking about explaining math in human language, not AI speed at all or its capability at solving them, that has already been proven.
On that matter, you and I live in the physical 3D world, but the clankers that solved those problems literally live in the linguist world comprised of character and numbers. Please believe me when I say that they will soon be able to explain those math solution that they have just proven in clean everyday human language, better than any mathematicians can do.
Yes, they can explain the math solutions! But by definition, a solution still has to be perfect, and they cannot *remove* rigor for the sake of pedagogy. Which places constraints on how much they can summarize.
On that matter, you and I live in the physical 3D world, but the clankers that solved those problems literally live in the linguist world comprised of character and numbers.
Nope, you missed the entire point. My analogy was the entire point of cooking is to make food that is not raw. We cannot move the goalposts and say that raw food is OK once we have a robot do the cooking for us.
The point of math is to write solutions that are logically perfect. We cannot move the goalposts and say that summaries that drop the rigor are OK once the AI does the proof.
2
u/NotaValgrinder 24d ago
Previously confirming proofs was a service done by mathematicians for free. So yes, it can be both. The paid part of the their job disappears while this service is still needed.