4 ms·

It's a good question. Pure maths has foreshadowed a lot of physics, and a lot of Computer Science. We should probably keep doing it. Does the current model (o

It's a good question. Pure maths has foreshadowed a lot of physics, and a lot of Computer Science. We should probably keep doing it. Does the current model (of highly-talented academics at Universities mostly arguing with each other) change because of AI? Does it invalidate human effort, or does it allow humans to push the boundaries further? Is there no point in training or paying for mathematicians because AI will take over the whole role? Or, as we're finding with so many other areas, does AI do its best work when guided by someone who knows the area and subject well?

a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago
What do you mean by invalidate? It means we no longer need to understand math, of course. When Claude made progress on the Riemann conjecture, here are the kind of prompts used: > Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress. It seems like the kind of prompts a high schooler could come up with. The prompter is the creator of bun.js, a kind of janky JavaScript execution environment. It seems like we no longer need to know the subject well at all.
- piltdownman 1mo ago
  What did the Medicis or Guggengheim's do other than be rich and idle at the right time and place in history? The contemporary prompt is a port for patronage, not a point of inflection - with a similarly ludicrous symbiotic relationship defined by impression management on both sides. Same as it ever was.
- marcus_holmes 29d ago
  OK, but in that scenario the prompter doesn't understand the output and can't judge whether the LLM is going off the rails or not. As we know from coding, this is a vital step in the process. Experienced coders produce better results, faster, from LLMs than inexperienced coders. I'm not a mathematician so I can't judge the results (which is kinda my point).

a2ff6eeb0 1mo ago

What do you mean by invalidate? It means we no longer need to understand math, of course. When Claude made progress on the Riemann conjecture, here are the kind of prompts used: > Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress. It seems like the kind of prompts a high schooler could come up with. The prompter is the creator of bun.js, a kind of janky JavaScript execution environment. It seems like we no longer need to know the subject well at all.

piltdownman 1mo ago
What did the Medicis or Guggengheim's do other than be rich and idle at the right time and place in history? The contemporary prompt is a port for patronage, not a point of inflection - with a similarly ludicrous symbiotic relationship defined by impression management on both sides. Same as it ever was.
marcus_holmes 29d ago
OK, but in that scenario the prompter doesn't understand the output and can't judge whether the LLM is going off the rails or not. As we know from coding, this is a vital step in the process. Experienced coders produce better results, faster, from LLMs than inexperienced coders. I'm not a mathematician so I can't judge the results (which is kinda my point).