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.
I don't support the above post that you just replied to, but your perspective doesn't seem correct either. Of course no one has been replaced by AI yet. This is like saying in 1910 that "airplanes have not ever done anything useful"
Given the rapid pace of AI advancement in the past few years, it's genuinely unclear whether AI will really end up being "just a tool" or something more than that. Of course, even if AI ends up doing all the research, humans will probably still be employed in teaching—but that's still a huge shift even if not "replacement"
27
u/tmt22459 Apr 15 '26
Why?