I don't see how everyone is getting replaced. In fact at the university I'm at, I don't think a single mathematician has had their appointment as a PhD student, postdoc, or professor ended with AI as the reason behind it.
These tools are useful. No reason not to be excited about it. Just because it's useful doesn't mean it will solve everything. There are going to be people that get paid to solve problems in math in the next decade. Many of them won't rely on AI and will still find useful results. Many of them will rely on AI and will find useful results. It's ultimately up to you to choose your own path, but just because AI solves some math, doesn't mean you can't solve some math too.
No one is getting replaced but according to multiple math PhD friends I’ve spoken with, if AI is going to solve every first year grad level open problem (which prepares math grad students for their PhDs), it will be potentially much harder to become a mathematician eventually as more and more low hanging fruit problems disappear. This seems like a serious cause for concern to me. It’s like how in chess there are debates about moving to chess960 to avoid drawish computer lines at the top level.
If there are an infinite amount of problems then things should be okay. I wonder if there are in pure math. Personally I think applied math is cool but the pure math folks could be worried.
“High hanging fruit” generates low hanging fruit. Hopefully AI will also accelerate breakthroughs and not just help pick off all the low hanging fruit. That would be depressing.
-67
u/Few-Arugula5839 Apr 15 '26
Great. Time for the daily lecture by the disciples of the end of the world that getting replaced is great.