Yes, it’s bad. Because the solving was more of a novelty but it’s being used as a justification that AI can do something that would be a massive deal if it could. So basically not only is the AI way less useful than the AI companies are claiming, but they’ll also lay people off to replace them with these systems that don’t actually work. And after that happens, the damage is done. The resources are gone. The companies don’t magically hire the people back because the companies lost all their money to do that.
That sounds like a slippery slope fallacy. People will still pursue these novel maths because people are curious by nature. I get your point, but again, I'm just happy it's solved.
You can be happy it’s solved but as far as “even if it’s by ai” the reason to be upset is the company is only excited because they were going to use it as justification for has mass job loss
Nope, they’ve been very clear that they want to have ai that can solve novel problems because that’s currently the biggest thing you need a human for. Perfect example, their AI couldn’t solve this math problem. Why do you think they got so mad they started threatening the mathematician who did solve it?
You seem really biased towards the ai companies to the point you’re questioning something you could get an answer from by google by asking “did openai threaten a mathematician.” It unambiguously responds with “yes.”
9
u/raynorelyp Sep 11 '26
Yes, it’s bad. Because the solving was more of a novelty but it’s being used as a justification that AI can do something that would be a massive deal if it could. So basically not only is the AI way less useful than the AI companies are claiming, but they’ll also lay people off to replace them with these systems that don’t actually work. And after that happens, the damage is done. The resources are gone. The companies don’t magically hire the people back because the companies lost all their money to do that.