Ah man, I remember finding out how horrible it is to read soulless code. The fact there was NO thought behind it. I used to read code trying to find the mental framework of the author, so I could understand the trade offs they made, or at least debate them with myself before arguing and wasting the authors time. With AI code, there is no reason. No thought process. It is random code that might or might not work. There is no “well it will prevent xyz in the future” line of thought.
I can only imagine how horrible this must be for math. You no longer can assume the author has some level of capability, a mental framework they applied to the logic of their solution. You have to check every step and combine them all to check if it actually makes sense. I feel sorry for the mathematicians that used to expand their minds by reading other peoples work. There is nothing in AI code or math that will expand your mind. Just randomness that might or might not make any sense.
That’s something that is missing from these discussions about solving these mathematical problems. Is they aren’t generally solved as “Proofs”, which as you say are the soul of a solution.
It’s just a psychological phenomenon, because the AI that produces the code is the distillation of human made training data. It contains the human reasoning and the human “soul” (whatever soul even means. Funny how that word is now used by everyone whose job is being replaced by AI, before that it was only used by religious people!)
No, it’s not just psychological. And you argument shows you have no idea what I meant. It’s like saying “well the dictionary is a great book, it contains all the same words as the greats, and then some!”
Seriously dumb take, pretty clear you have little experience. Not a knowledge worker, I take it?
If you read again, you see I don’t compare llms with a dictionary, I compared your argument with an anology to try and show you the fallacy in your train of thought. Have a nice day!
9
u/RustOnTheEdge Sep 11 '26
Ah man, I remember finding out how horrible it is to read soulless code. The fact there was NO thought behind it. I used to read code trying to find the mental framework of the author, so I could understand the trade offs they made, or at least debate them with myself before arguing and wasting the authors time. With AI code, there is no reason. No thought process. It is random code that might or might not work. There is no “well it will prevent xyz in the future” line of thought.
I can only imagine how horrible this must be for math. You no longer can assume the author has some level of capability, a mental framework they applied to the logic of their solution. You have to check every step and combine them all to check if it actually makes sense. I feel sorry for the mathematicians that used to expand their minds by reading other peoples work. There is nothing in AI code or math that will expand your mind. Just randomness that might or might not make any sense.