2026-09-08 21:24 UTC
@tao@mathstodon.xyz I still am not persuaded by this.
When AI companies find incomprehensible solutions to open problems, this either advances the field, or it does not.
If it does, then that's a good thing and we should have more of it.
If it doesn't, then no incentives for humans to advance the field are lost. Existence of a raw solution won't make a difference.
Only our math artifacts and systems need to change towards what we consider truly valuable: insights, not results.
Replies (2)
-
@drScott@mathstodon.xyz 2026-09-08 22:10
@nilesh@fosstodon.org @tao@mathstodon.xyz I'm curious about what precise statement you are not persuaded to; the most clear thesis statements I see above are exactly about artifacts and systems. Good problems are likely to be scarce because of our choice of artifacts and systems.
-
@taoish@mastodonapp.uk 2026-09-10 04:12
@nilesh@fosstodon.org You assert a mutually-exclusive binary dichotomy: "When AI companies find incomprehensible solutions to open problems, this either advances the field, or it does not. " Says who? What is your proof for this drastic proposition? Why couldn't an incomprehensible solution "advance the field" in some ways and set it back in others? @tao@mathstodon.xyz