Join the discussion
Write your take first — we'll ask for email only when you're ready to publish.
- Hacker News
- "It is not the destination, but the journey that matters"
For now, AI will be another tool in the toolbox of mathematicians. With humans driving the conversation to help understand the world better. If/when AGI is reached maybe we won’t be in the driver seat as much. I don’t think that matters. The goal of math is to achieve greater understanding of the world, regardless if humans are driving or if an AI is.
by justinparus - I feel like, to different degrees, we’re witnessing the same effect seen in image generation or text generation. People who don’t know better about art or writing would be impressed by what gen AI can produce and will find it indistinguishable from a human-produced equivalent. This admittedly is good enough for most business endeavors that cared only about the process, and would gladly avoid the cumbersome (to them) process that leads there. But art or writing is not just about the product as much as it is about the human process itself. That is true for all creative forms, even the ones that are normalized in business. Now with the advancements of the frontier models, we’re seeing this in growingly complex fields like mathematics. It does seem to produce results, but the process is equally important. Yet we pretend to measure its ability only based on the result. It’s as if these tools grow to become better at pretending to be top of the crop in increasingly complex fields, which makes it harder and harder for people that actually have a deep grasp of those fields to explain why that’s not exactly what’s going on.
- I appreciate the wordplay in the title.
- "After Math" seems premature. Maths is probably infinite meaning there will always be more to discover.
Regarding AI getting better than humans, in some ways it may be more like the invention of the microscope - instead of worrying about it reducing demand for people with good eyes it may open up new discoveries.
One example I'm kind of excited for is that I've long suspected that the inability to combine quantum mechanics with general relativity is because the maths gets too hard for humans. I mean Navier Stokes on singularities in fluid flow in euclidean space is hard enough. Particles may be singularities in quantum fields in relativistic space time which is probably mathematically far harder. But it would be interesting to know how that works.
by tim333 - Wouldn't AI make the field of mathematics more ambitious? In software development it feels that way: there are often tasks I can take on that would have been too risky in 2025, because it was unclear if they were worth it. Now you generate a prototype and can make much better judgement calls what is possible and what is worth pursuing.by stabbles
- This kind of argument is always dangerous, because it essentially resorts to moving goalposts. "Oh, AI can now do X? Sure it is amazing, but it can't do Y yet, so we're totally safe!"
Just because humans can't process the proof or see the advancements, it doesn't mean that it will remain that way in the future or that it will not change the field. If you only define yourself by things AI can't do yet, you're about to have a rude awakening. We've gone from high school, to university math, to Euler problems all the way to Millennium problems in a time frame most people couldn't even do a PhD. If you start any math research now with a horizon beyond the next two years, I'd be terrified of the current rate of progress.
by sigmoid10 - The elephant in the room no one talks about yet, imo, is "should public funding of math studies be adjusted due to AI breakthroughs?"
The sports comparison is wrong here because general public never paid for the specific match results. The value was always in the show, the advertising and betting around it, the health and educational value of doing sports, etc. And the sport mostly lives on what it earns, not on public funding.
Math, on the other hand, was paid for because people and states believed progress in math might lead to meaningful improvements in other branches of science, and, in turn, in our lives. If this is better served by AI, should we keep paying for the same number of tenure positions? Should we increase their number to handle the speedup brought by AI? Or decrease because they're being replaced? Should we pay more to those using AI to do their research, or to those explaining and exploring the AI-generated results?
by reisse - I think as a civilization we need to postulate a new term: “purpose death”
Defined something like: temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the experience of existential dread from never achieving self-actualization in spite of the tremendous time commitment towards excellence in a now automated intelligence.
I truly think because of the pace of innovation this will be a universal feeling for every human for the rest of existence.
As a software engineer, I myself have only recently recovered from it. So, it’s really interesting to watch a prominent figure in their industry publicly go through “purpose death” and the related grief. It’ll be a useful case study to re-read his written meditations through this cycle.
I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase I’m sure he wisely kept off the Internet, and is currently in the bargaining phase - ie scrambling to change the goal posts. I wonder if he will wisely keep the depression / burnout phases also off the internet.
However, soon as the goalposts keep falling, I think like most humans he will accept, retool, and come out of this grief with renewed purpose with larger expectations of himself and mathematics. This recent post even starts towards some of that - but sadly is slightly off the mark.
“The important question is, therefore, not whether AI will defeat mathematicians, but which mathematical ends we want AI to serve.”
He still thinks there is controlling AI. AI will run and trample anything that stays in front of it. He needs to one day find acceptance in letting AI run while he learns how to suggest it minor course corrections which it may or may not accept, and when it doesn’t accept quickly learn from the AI why he was right or wrong.
I maybe wrong, but I think this is the cycle of “purpose death” we will all have to contend with in our own time.