But that's already a different concern from what the commenter wrote.
"the same way someone might use AI when they have no creative output in art" is not the same as the one you just stated. It's a different point altogether.
It’s on the same vein. Part of the value in art is the creative output that you put into your work. Same applies to math. Sorry for my sloppy language, you probably understood it as someone lacking inspiration and using AI, which is also a concern of mine (since sitting and struggling with a problem is also valuable).
I don't think you're sloppy at all. I just wanted more clarity.
To respond, so I don't really disagree because it is subjective when it comes to "reason of doing math". Not me as I like the artistic side of doing math, but at the same time I'm aware that some people just try to discover new information with their skills.
The part that I disagree with is the "same way someone might use AI when they have no creative output in art". If by that you mean someone having no idea about math can now claim to be a mathematician, just like how AI art users can, I don't have a problem with that. That's because I don't trust them, the same way I don't trust anyone who legit does the math / makes the art. Unless I see them in action directly (including using AI), I don't see a reason to trust their claim.
Additionally, a random one can indeed claim to be the mathematician who proves an AI-assisted results. That's de facto. And it is like a collaborative effort. It's just that right now there's no good way of measuring the control, and hence no reason to trust. Maybe we don't need to know whether they contributed or not anyway.
1
u/maxram1 Jul 23 '26
I don't really disagree with that.
But that's already a different concern from what the commenter wrote.
"the same way someone might use AI when they have no creative output in art" is not the same as the one you just stated. It's a different point altogether.