5 ms·

Mathematicians will probably become obsolete before anyone else [pdf] (2004)

107 points by tiahura 2mo ago

amelius 2mo ago
Mathematicians can always switch to a career as a worker in a DRAM factory ...
appplication 2mo ago
The interesting context: 1) this has nothing to do with LLMs 2) this is a pdf of a handwritten letter and 3) this was written by the unabomber
- ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
  Well, thank you for the context of (2) and (3), but you’re dead wrong about (1), because Kaczynski was uniquely qualified to accurately predict LLMs, and here is the proof, complete with an analogy of headstone carving. So this is our battle-cry: “Ted Kaczynski wasn’t wrong!”
- bananaflag 2mo ago
  I would like to also know the date.
  - dist-epoch 2mo ago
    Dec 2004
- sandworm101 2mo ago
  Yup. Few here read the article before jumping to the AI conclusion. Even fewer even know what Freedom Club was all about.
  - mauricio 2mo ago
    But isn't AI technology?
GPerson 2mo ago
It’s good to know Ted Kaczynski’s thinking is as lazy as every internet shit poster.
- n4r9 2mo ago
  What does "amenable to computerisation" even mean? Typist used to be a job, but it's become computerised. Stuff like data entry is surely not for away.
- karmakurtisaani 2mo ago
  It absolutely is. I once read a tiny part one of his manifesto, and it was full of weird leftist boogeymen without any justification. It made sense that he went ahead with terrorism rather than trying to argue his point peacefully.
  - sambapa 2mo ago
    Maybe the justification is in another part of this manifesto, but you were too lazy to read it.
    - karmakurtisaani 2mo ago
      Just give it a look mate.
  - lukan 2mo ago
    Well, ask any person medical dependent advanced tech on whether they want to go back to a primitive life - and most obviously say no, as they would literally die. And also most other people like hot showers and refrigerators. So you cannot get far with peaceful discourse - so what do you do, if the self righteous anger is still boiling? Literally blow something up apparently. I mean I get the anger on careless destruction of wild nature. I feel it too. But bombs don't change that. They make it only worse.
    - karmakurtisaani 2mo ago
fwlr 2mo ago
Very prescient from Uncle Ted.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
metalman 2mo ago
cartographery and translation are vastly smaller professions than they were, that have been altered as to where and how they are practiced and going forward are vulnerable to bieng abused and manipulated if they fall under central controll with closed source software.
amelius 2mo ago
Remember, programming is a branch of mathematics.
- ChrisGreenHeur 2mo ago
  What’s the mathematical proof of this?
  - IngoBlechschmid 2mo ago
    The Curry-Howard correspondence. For instance, in mathematics, we have A ⇒ A (every statement implies itself, for instance "if it rains, then it rains"); and analogously, in programming, we have the identity function of type A → A (which reads a value as input and outputs the same value). This is the tip of an enormous iceberg identifying, in a certain precise sense, proving with programming (and stating mathematical assertions with specifying the desired behavior of a program). However, programming is a bit more general than proving: Circular proofs are simply of no value, whereas looping programs can still be valuable. For instance, I for sure hope that the main loop of the browser I'm currently using to fill out this textbox does not prematurely stop.
    - mrob 2mo ago
      >we have the identity function of type A → A (which reads a value as input and outputs the same value) That only exists in theoretical computer science. In real computer programming, you always have some bounds to the value of A.
      - pdhborges 2mo ago
        I think it is time to repost Against Curry-Howard Mysticism (https://liamoc.net/forest/loc-000S/index.xml https://liamoc.net/forest/loc-000S/index.xml)
- siva7 2mo ago
  so is physics?
burnt-resistor 2mo ago
The Unabomber had semi-correct problem identification, but completely worthless prescription like else anyone unable to separate reality from fiction basing their ideas on a Hollywood revenge movie or becoming a crazy terrorist with a cause that maybe valid seeing themselves as "good guy freedom-fighters" but alienates and harms many. People might've been interested in helping to counteract the effects or sources of a problem if a change advocate approached them in a manner that was constructive, achievable, rational, and considerate. Instead, evil, lazy actions make the cause a pariah and its supporters enemies to most. He had infinite options he failed to exercise, like getting involved in the humanities (sociology, philosophy, law) and/or community building to do the groundwork necessary to contribute positive change rather than illusionary shortcuts to fruitless impact, needless suffering, and self-destruction. AGI is a canard. Too much money in electricity, servers, land, and technological advances would be needed to build and operate sufficiently capable digital reasoning. Domain-specific pseudo-intelligence task automation will continue here and there with LLMs, deep learning, and such, but no one is building just one "brain" for less than $5T and it probably wouldn't be very performant. Current AI is totally incapable of replacing expert human judgment for almost everything because they lack constraints, predictability, and reliability. Also, most models hallucinate worthless, incorrect answers so often that they should be relegated to glorified creative, entertainment, and task-acceleration work for the foreseeable future and not be given wildly-inappropriate power like giving a toddler a nuke. Furthermore, the appeal to LLM authority fallacy is a dangerous trend of unthinking, laziness of people failing to think skeptically and find sources for themselves. Finally, too many laypeople and wild-eyed techbros are projecting and imagining AI capabilities that aren't really there and may never exist, but then making much bigger mistakes of irrational, risky bets on their preconceived conclusions, and telling us we should worship the billionaires, accept layoffs, accept panopticon surveillance, accept their loud, polluting data centers in our literal backyards.. for what good?
- applfanboysbgon 2mo ago
  > People might've been interested in helping to counteract the effects or sources of a problem if a change advocate approached them in a manner that was constructive, achievable, rational, and considerate. I mean this is just obviously and flagrantly untrue, eg. Greta Thunberg became a culture war boogeyman for half of the political spectrum over significantly more moderate views expressed in exactly the way you describe. If anything, acting like a bitch just emboldens the type who cause problems to cause more problems when they see these signs of weakness and zero will to resist them, as we see happening with acts of complete irrationality like Trump making a war against fucking wind turbines a top priority of the US government's agenda. When you tell people they're protesting the wrong way, you're really just saying "I don't want to hear your complaints. Make them in a way that doesn't bother me so I can ignore them".
sdevonoes 2mo ago
So many things he got right (except you know what)
manfromchina1 2mo ago
Does anyone have to understand AI output when it comes to math? Then that someone has to be trained in math. Yeah, for all intents and purposes that person is a mathematician. Maybe not the one who gets money for that in which case they are not a professional mathematician. Maybe these paid guys will disappear. However if AI keeps churning out new stuff nobody understands humanity will have to create a new category of employment for those who do to make sense of all that. Mathematicians, then, are back in the game again. One possibility is that AI keeps churning out new math and funnels it into other branches of science and engineering without any human input. At which point math becomes a black box. Maybe in that case human mathematicians might become obsolete. But then other branches will start becoming incomprehensible as well.
- srean 2mo ago
  Human Mathematics is what lives in the head of all of humanity, not a serialized proof of a theorem or conjecture. Yes the other kinds maybe useful, may even pay the bills, but as long as humans enjoy mathematics the human side will survive. People still go on runs although that's not what wins wars today.
imranq 2mo ago
Personally, I found that people are impressed with AI for subjects they simply don't understand, and when an expert works with AI, they're often underwhelmed. So while we're seeing some mathematics being automated and proved, I think there's a long way to go before we automate proofs with meaningful human value.
- danielmarkbruce 2mo ago
  Maybe Terry Tao has an idea.
imranq 2mo ago
Transcribed letter (from chatgpt): Dear Mr., In your letter of December 14, you ask me whether mathematics is a worthwhile endeavor. Mathematics absolutely is not a worthwhile endeavor! I can imagine only three possible reasons for studying mathematics: (1) Entertainment. (2) To promote technological progress. (3) To promote one’s own career. Reason (1) is harmless; but one doesn’t refer to entertainment as a “worthwhile endeavor”; it’s just a pastime. As for reason (2), modern technology is the worst thing that ever happened to the world, and to promote its progress is nothing short of criminal. Read Our Final Century, by Martin Rees; or read “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” an article by Bill Joy that appeared in Wired magazine, April, 2000. As for reason (3), to choose mathematics as one’s career would be very risky. Not long ago I received a letter from a gravestone sculptor whose craft had been rendered obsolete by a laser-guided machine that carved gravestones automatically. He was in his forties, unable to find work, and depressed. Maybe you think that can’t happen to you if you become a mathematician. But you’re wrong. Martin Rees, Bill Joy, and many other distinguished experts believe that within a few decades machines will be developed that will be more intelligent than even the smartest human beings. When that happens, people will be obsolete; they will be phased out and will be replaced by computers and robots. This will happen to everyone eventually, but mathematicians probably will become obsolete before anyone else does, because mathematics is more amenable to computerization than any other field. Hence, computers probably will surpass humans in mathematics before they do so in other areas. Sincerely yours, Ted Kaczynski
- tim333 2mo ago
  He skips over understanding our world which is probably the reason most pure maths is done. The Joy article mentions is here https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ by the way, and includes discussion of Kaczynski.
  - busyant 2mo ago
    > He skips over understanding our world which is probably the reason most pure maths is done. I'm not sure I agree with this. I suppose it could be that we have different defintions of what "our world" means. You might like the quote below. I suspect you're arguing that most pure math is performed for option #2 below (utilitarian purposes). Like I said, I'm not so sure. In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were [someone to] drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.
amelius 2mo ago
It's starting to look like the first profession on Earth will also be the last profession ...
- goatlover 2mo ago
  I think humans will always value human labor in some professions like athletics and some entertainment and service. Consider how chess has not been diminished as a human competition despite computers being much better. We prefer human drama. High end service will likely be human to distinguish itself from all the cheaper automation. Listening to humans play live music won't go away. Having a human touch when being cared for won't either.
tim333 2mo ago
He was a bit ahead of the trend. I think mathematicians may be able to use AI to explore distant areas of maths. It's not like it's finite. I would probably be more inclined to do serious maths now with AI assistance than before without as I'm not good enough to make decent progress. I've long been curious what the renormalization stuff in quantum mechanics is about and how to combine that with gravitation but it's way beyond my brain cells.
TiredOfLife 2mo ago
Mathematicians were not obsolete already?
- fittingopposite 2mo ago
  Good point. At least 20+ years until you could see a start of what he describes in the letter. Wondering why this is really the case what he describes...
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]

107 points by tiahura 2mo ago

Mathematicians can always switch to a career as a worker in a DRAM factory ...

The interesting context: 1) this has nothing to do with LLMs 2) this is a pdf of a handwritten letter and 3) this was written by the unabomber

ButlerianJihad 2mo ago
Well, thank you for the context of (2) and (3), but you’re dead wrong about (1), because Kaczynski was uniquely qualified to accurately predict LLMs, and here is the proof, complete with an analogy of headstone carving. So this is our battle-cry: “Ted Kaczynski wasn’t wrong!”
bananaflag 2mo ago
I would like to also know the date.
- dist-epoch 2mo ago
  Dec 2004
sandworm101 2mo ago
Yup. Few here read the article before jumping to the AI conclusion. Even fewer even know what Freedom Club was all about.
- mauricio 2mo ago
  But isn't AI technology?

GPerson 2mo ago

It’s good to know Ted Kaczynski’s thinking is as lazy as every internet shit poster.

n4r9 2mo ago
What does "amenable to computerisation" even mean? Typist used to be a job, but it's become computerised. Stuff like data entry is surely not for away.
karmakurtisaani 2mo ago
It absolutely is. I once read a tiny part one of his manifesto, and it was full of weird leftist boogeymen without any justification. It made sense that he went ahead with terrorism rather than trying to argue his point peacefully.
- sambapa 2mo ago
  Maybe the justification is in another part of this manifesto, but you were too lazy to read it.
  - karmakurtisaani 2mo ago
    Just give it a look mate.
- lukan 2mo ago
  Well, ask any person medical dependent advanced tech on whether they want to go back to a primitive life - and most obviously say no, as they would literally die. And also most other people like hot showers and refrigerators. So you cannot get far with peaceful discourse - so what do you do, if the self righteous anger is still boiling? Literally blow something up apparently. I mean I get the anger on careless destruction of wild nature. I feel it too. But bombs don't change that. They make it only worse.
  - karmakurtisaani 2mo ago

fwlr 2mo ago

Very prescient from Uncle Ted.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

metalman 2mo ago

cartographery and translation are vastly smaller professions than they were, that have been altered as to where and how they are practiced and going forward are vulnerable to bieng abused and manipulated if they fall under central controll with closed source software.

amelius 2mo ago

Remember, programming is a branch of mathematics.

ChrisGreenHeur 2mo ago
What’s the mathematical proof of this?
- IngoBlechschmid 2mo ago
  The Curry-Howard correspondence. For instance, in mathematics, we have A ⇒ A (every statement implies itself, for instance "if it rains, then it rains"); and analogously, in programming, we have the identity function of type A → A (which reads a value as input and outputs the same value). This is the tip of an enormous iceberg identifying, in a certain precise sense, proving with programming (and stating mathematical assertions with specifying the desired behavior of a program). However, programming is a bit more general than proving: Circular proofs are simply of no value, whereas looping programs can still be valuable. For instance, I for sure hope that the main loop of the browser I'm currently using to fill out this textbox does not prematurely stop.
  - mrob 2mo ago
    >we have the identity function of type A → A (which reads a value as input and outputs the same value) That only exists in theoretical computer science. In real computer programming, you always have some bounds to the value of A.
    - pdhborges 2mo ago
      I think it is time to repost Against Curry-Howard Mysticism (https://liamoc.net/forest/loc-000S/index.xml https://liamoc.net/forest/loc-000S/index.xml)
siva7 2mo ago
so is physics?

burnt-resistor 2mo ago

The Unabomber had semi-correct problem identification, but completely worthless prescription like else anyone unable to separate reality from fiction basing their ideas on a Hollywood revenge movie or becoming a crazy terrorist with a cause that maybe valid seeing themselves as "good guy freedom-fighters" but alienates and harms many. People might've been interested in helping to counteract the effects or sources of a problem if a change advocate approached them in a manner that was constructive, achievable, rational, and considerate. Instead, evil, lazy actions make the cause a pariah and its supporters enemies to most. He had infinite options he failed to exercise, like getting involved in the humanities (sociology, philosophy, law) and/or community building to do the groundwork necessary to contribute positive change rather than illusionary shortcuts to fruitless impact, needless suffering, and self-destruction. AGI is a canard. Too much money in electricity, servers, land, and technological advances would be needed to build and operate sufficiently capable digital reasoning. Domain-specific pseudo-intelligence task automation will continue here and there with LLMs, deep learning, and such, but no one is building just one "brain" for less than $5T and it probably wouldn't be very performant. Current AI is totally incapable of replacing expert human judgment for almost everything because they lack constraints, predictability, and reliability. Also, most models hallucinate worthless, incorrect answers so often that they should be relegated to glorified creative, entertainment, and task-acceleration work for the foreseeable future and not be given wildly-inappropriate power like giving a toddler a nuke. Furthermore, the appeal to LLM authority fallacy is a dangerous trend of unthinking, laziness of people failing to think skeptically and find sources for themselves. Finally, too many laypeople and wild-eyed techbros are projecting and imagining AI capabilities that aren't really there and may never exist, but then making much bigger mistakes of irrational, risky bets on their preconceived conclusions, and telling us we should worship the billionaires, accept layoffs, accept panopticon surveillance, accept their loud, polluting data centers in our literal backyards.. for what good?

applfanboysbgon 2mo ago
> People might've been interested in helping to counteract the effects or sources of a problem if a change advocate approached them in a manner that was constructive, achievable, rational, and considerate. I mean this is just obviously and flagrantly untrue, eg. Greta Thunberg became a culture war boogeyman for half of the political spectrum over significantly more moderate views expressed in exactly the way you describe. If anything, acting like a bitch just emboldens the type who cause problems to cause more problems when they see these signs of weakness and zero will to resist them, as we see happening with acts of complete irrationality like Trump making a war against fucking wind turbines a top priority of the US government's agenda. When you tell people they're protesting the wrong way, you're really just saying "I don't want to hear your complaints. Make them in a way that doesn't bother me so I can ignore them".

sdevonoes 2mo ago

So many things he got right (except you know what)

manfromchina1 2mo ago

Does anyone have to understand AI output when it comes to math? Then that someone has to be trained in math. Yeah, for all intents and purposes that person is a mathematician. Maybe not the one who gets money for that in which case they are not a professional mathematician. Maybe these paid guys will disappear. However if AI keeps churning out new stuff nobody understands humanity will have to create a new category of employment for those who do to make sense of all that. Mathematicians, then, are back in the game again. One possibility is that AI keeps churning out new math and funnels it into other branches of science and engineering without any human input. At which point math becomes a black box. Maybe in that case human mathematicians might become obsolete. But then other branches will start becoming incomprehensible as well.

srean 2mo ago
Human Mathematics is what lives in the head of all of humanity, not a serialized proof of a theorem or conjecture. Yes the other kinds maybe useful, may even pay the bills, but as long as humans enjoy mathematics the human side will survive. People still go on runs although that's not what wins wars today.

imranq 2mo ago

Personally, I found that people are impressed with AI for subjects they simply don't understand, and when an expert works with AI, they're often underwhelmed. So while we're seeing some mathematics being automated and proved, I think there's a long way to go before we automate proofs with meaningful human value.

danielmarkbruce 2mo ago
Maybe Terry Tao has an idea.

imranq 2mo ago

Transcribed letter (from chatgpt): Dear Mr., In your letter of December 14, you ask me whether mathematics is a worthwhile endeavor. Mathematics absolutely is not a worthwhile endeavor! I can imagine only three possible reasons for studying mathematics: (1) Entertainment. (2) To promote technological progress. (3) To promote one’s own career. Reason (1) is harmless; but one doesn’t refer to entertainment as a “worthwhile endeavor”; it’s just a pastime. As for reason (2), modern technology is the worst thing that ever happened to the world, and to promote its progress is nothing short of criminal. Read Our Final Century, by Martin Rees; or read “Why the Future Doesn’t Need Us,” an article by Bill Joy that appeared in Wired magazine, April, 2000. As for reason (3), to choose mathematics as one’s career would be very risky. Not long ago I received a letter from a gravestone sculptor whose craft had been rendered obsolete by a laser-guided machine that carved gravestones automatically. He was in his forties, unable to find work, and depressed. Maybe you think that can’t happen to you if you become a mathematician. But you’re wrong. Martin Rees, Bill Joy, and many other distinguished experts believe that within a few decades machines will be developed that will be more intelligent than even the smartest human beings. When that happens, people will be obsolete; they will be phased out and will be replaced by computers and robots. This will happen to everyone eventually, but mathematicians probably will become obsolete before anyone else does, because mathematics is more amenable to computerization than any other field. Hence, computers probably will surpass humans in mathematics before they do so in other areas. Sincerely yours, Ted Kaczynski

tim333 2mo ago
He skips over understanding our world which is probably the reason most pure maths is done. The Joy article mentions is here https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ https://www.wired.com/2000/04/joy-2/ by the way, and includes discussion of Kaczynski.
- busyant 2mo ago
  > He skips over understanding our world which is probably the reason most pure maths is done. I'm not sure I agree with this. I suppose it could be that we have different defintions of what "our world" means. You might like the quote below. I suspect you're arguing that most pure math is performed for option #2 below (utilitarian purposes). Like I said, I'm not so sure. In the temple of science are many mansions, and various indeed are they that dwell therein and the motives that have led them thither. Many take to science out of a joyful sense of superior intellectual power; science is their own special sport to which they look for vivid experience and the satisfaction of ambition; many others are to be found in the temple who have offered the products of their brains on this altar for purely utilitarian purposes. Were [someone to] drive all the people belonging to these two categories out of the temple, the assemblage would be seriously depleted, but there would still be some men, of both present and past times, left inside. Our Planck is one of them, and that is why we love him.

amelius 2mo ago

It's starting to look like the first profession on Earth will also be the last profession ...

goatlover 2mo ago
I think humans will always value human labor in some professions like athletics and some entertainment and service. Consider how chess has not been diminished as a human competition despite computers being much better. We prefer human drama. High end service will likely be human to distinguish itself from all the cheaper automation. Listening to humans play live music won't go away. Having a human touch when being cared for won't either.

tim333 2mo ago

He was a bit ahead of the trend. I think mathematicians may be able to use AI to explore distant areas of maths. It's not like it's finite. I would probably be more inclined to do serious maths now with AI assistance than before without as I'm not good enough to make decent progress. I've long been curious what the renormalization stuff in quantum mechanics is about and how to combine that with gravitation but it's way beyond my brain cells.

TiredOfLife 2mo ago

Mathematicians were not obsolete already?

fittingopposite 2mo ago
Good point. At least 20+ years until you could see a start of what he describes in the letter. Wondering why this is really the case what he describes...

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]