4 ms·

Are you aware that Tao is among the largest proponents of using AI in mathematics? The usage itself is not the point here.

by pred_ 22d ago

david-gpu 22d ago
Tao doesn't go as far as Baudelaire, but there are some similarities. In particular, Tao has criticized that AI is not being used to create new interesting conjectures, and that the rush to prove old conjectures is not giving human mathematicians enough time to carefully analyze and understand the proofs and the methods used in those proofs. My answer to both is the same: nothing stops mathematicians from doing both of those things, with or without the help of AI. And we all understand that it will take time to do that. But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive.
- deleted 22d ago
  [deleted]
- robotpepi 22d ago
  > But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive. you completely misunderstood the critics. your analogy is awful. this is much closer to the industrial revolution in the uk: it brought a lot of progress, but also extreme inequality and concentration of power.
  - david-gpu 21d ago
    I am very specifically addressing what I have read Terrence Tao say on AI and mathematics, as that is the subject of this submission. Are we on the same page?
    - beepbooptheory 21d ago
      It's not about whether the conjectures themselves are interesting or not, or whether people simply have enough time. It's that a bare proof made by a machine doesn't actually do much for us. There is not some set of problems that, once finished, will amount to some kind of final, correct system and we can call it a day and, like, utilize it. "Mathematics" is the people doing it (the "mathematical community" Tao references below). This other stuff is kinda just.. expensive exercises to render a result. They are only actually beneficial to us insofar as they exist in a context of research among peers. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignment-of-ai-in-mathematics/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignm...
      - david-gpu 21d ago
        You have expressed a few different ideas, so I will address them separately. > It's not about whether the conjectures themselves are interesting or not, or whether people simply have enough time. Tao seems to think otherwise, if I am reading him correctly: I wrote recently about how the collection of good, fruitful open problems is now being mined in a non-renewable fashion, leading to the potential scenario of these problems becoming scarce [0] Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions. [1] > It's that a bare proof made by a machine doesn't actually do much for us. I get it, and I think the same can be said about all sorts of human endeavors. > There is not some set of problems that, once finished, will amount to some kind of final, correct system and we can call it a day and, like, utilize it. Sure. Although there are certainly practical applications to be found along the way. E.g. proving P=NP would be potentially very significant in the real world. I think we agree. > "Mathematics" is the people doing it (the "mathematical community" Tao references below) Sure. And the same can be said again about all sort of human endeavors. But I don't see how that is a reason to stop using AI in those fields, either. It doesn't subtract anything, in the same way that chess engines didn't destroy the love of the game for chess. And just like in chess, these AIs can be used to gain a deeper understanding. Including, but not limited to, explaining to humans the proof they just came up with. [0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237320796901560 https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237320796901560 [1] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignment-of-ai-in-mathematics/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignm...
        beepbooptheory 21d ago
        Are you trying to argue toward some final verdict with regard to LLMs and mathematics? I thought you were just trying to make a comparison to Baudelaire? I think maybe being clearer on this point would help. Even if you argued sufficiently for the latter (which is going to be tough already), it wouldn't really speak to the former. Or at least: that would have to be a separate argument I think. Also, how, in your words, do you feel like the first quote justifies your point (presumably with regard to the question of "interesting" or not)? And why do you think the second one is more about time itself rather than attribution? Do these things actually contradict the letter above (or the comment on it) in your mind or not? In general, do you disagree with something here specifically? Or is it kind of a yes/and thing? Does any of this help, in your mind, with the Baudelaire comparison you were at least at one point trying to argue for? Its a bit hard for me to see the argument here, if there is one, just with what you have written. But I am sure I am just not knowledgeable enough to grasp the argument!
    - robotpepi 21d ago
      I don't see any meaningful analogy with your cites of Baudelaire. First of all, Baudelaire discusses art, which is very different to science. Several new forms of art have emerged, and then slowly integrated, despite the strong opinions of some. Here, Tao's letter discusses mainly practical aspect of scientific research. It is not about what a "failed mathematician" would do, or if "LLM can only record what already existed"; in fact, it ackowledges that LLM could become a central tool. If you want me to be even more precise, what they're saying (without saying it out loud) is that tech companies have too much power and are being irrespondible with it because they don't even think about the externalities.
      - shimman 21d ago
        Of course there's a meaningful analogy. The poster wants to make Tao sound unreasonable and against "progress" while ignoring the very real concerns Tao has. It's what fanatics do when they want to enforce their view on the world, they have to attack anyone with a reasonable viewpoint because they can't imagine a world where someone tells them they don't like what they're doing.
        david-gpu 21d ago
        I do not want to make him sound unreasonable. He is a brilliant man. But I also think that he is a bit shell shocked, much like other luminaries in the past have been when confronted with rapid technological development, so I wanted to highlight some historical similarities, imperfect as they can only be. As for the rest of your comment, I hope you have a great day.
        GPerson 21d ago
        He’s not shell-shocked. He’s had an extremely consistent narrative for years now. You are experiencing a bias where you project your own views onto others, probably because you are not very informed on this.
        robotpepi 21d ago
        > But I also think that he is a bit shell shocked, much like other luminaries in the past have been when confronted with rapid technological development You're locked into that idea, but provide no real argument. The dangers they describe in the letter are real.
- joe_the_user 21d ago
  But the point is your original analogy with Baudelaire now just boils down to "both of them were critical" which is quite shallow indeed. It's especially annoying given that many people are making repeat Baudelaire's critique of photography (or Socrates critique of writing) in the context of AI and the declaration is interest because it's not that.
- gjulianm 21d ago
  There are no similarities whatsoever, other than them having opinions on a new tech that affects their field. > nothing stops mathematicians from doing both of those things Actually yes, and they explain that pretty clearly in the letter. These problems have been used as "goals" not because the solutions are necessarily worth it, but because they set a clear direction whose process would probably yield very useful theories, and also more conjectures and problems. If the goals get solved by AI models that do not generate comprehension, then the direction gets less clear, it's harder to collaborate and get funding (think what would be easier, to get funding to try and solve Navier-Stokes or to try and understand an already proven Navier-Stokes?), and we get less open problems to work on.
  - bonoboTP 21d ago
    > get funding It all comes down to this. Yes, they will need to give a good and convincing argument to the taxpayer. And at the end of the day, if the circumstances change, and you're unsuccessful in making your case in your plead, the taxpayer and their representatives may not want to keep the same level of funding and instead put that money to use elsewhere. So make a good argument why your job is still worth that cash under the new circumstances. The argument can appeal to aesthetics and art and philosophy and a kind of feeling of religious elegance and so on, it's fine. I can't say how well that will work, but it's worth a try. Taxes also fund theology and other pursuits with no tie to cold hard engineering etc. But that level of funding is not the same as for math currently. That gap may shrink.
    - gjulianm 20d ago
      I don’t get the argument you are making. If you want to reduce funding for mathematics research, argue for that. But wanting to make getting funding and coordination and collaboration harder in exchange for nothing other than PR for AI labs does not make sense
      - bonoboTP 20d ago
        Is it just PR? Okay then the useful math can be done by AI and we can leave aesthetic math to human academics who will ascetically refrain from using AI and if anyone of them submits a paper and it turns out they used computers they will be treated like WADA treats Olympians on steroids or chess players with a vibrator up their ass telling them what move to take. But again the taxpayer may not foot the bill for this endeavor as much as they did while thinking it may be useful for technology, science and engineering innovation.

Are you aware that Tao is among the largest proponents of using AI in mathematics? The usage itself is not the point here.

by pred_ 22d ago

Are you aware that Tao is among the largest proponents of using AI in mathematics? The usage itself is not the point here.

david-gpu 22d ago

Tao doesn't go as far as Baudelaire, but there are some similarities. In particular, Tao has criticized that AI is not being used to create new interesting conjectures, and that the rush to prove old conjectures is not giving human mathematicians enough time to carefully analyze and understand the proofs and the methods used in those proofs. My answer to both is the same: nothing stops mathematicians from doing both of those things, with or without the help of AI. And we all understand that it will take time to do that. But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive.

deleted 22d ago
[deleted]
robotpepi 22d ago
> But complaining about the dawn of a new era of advancements seems counterproductive. you completely misunderstood the critics. your analogy is awful. this is much closer to the industrial revolution in the uk: it brought a lot of progress, but also extreme inequality and concentration of power.
- david-gpu 21d ago
  I am very specifically addressing what I have read Terrence Tao say on AI and mathematics, as that is the subject of this submission. Are we on the same page?
  - beepbooptheory 21d ago
    It's not about whether the conjectures themselves are interesting or not, or whether people simply have enough time. It's that a bare proof made by a machine doesn't actually do much for us. There is not some set of problems that, once finished, will amount to some kind of final, correct system and we can call it a day and, like, utilize it. "Mathematics" is the people doing it (the "mathematical community" Tao references below). This other stuff is kinda just.. expensive exercises to render a result. They are only actually beneficial to us insofar as they exist in a context of research among peers. https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignment-of-ai-in-mathematics/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignm...
    - david-gpu 21d ago
      You have expressed a few different ideas, so I will address them separately. > It's not about whether the conjectures themselves are interesting or not, or whether people simply have enough time. Tao seems to think otherwise, if I am reading him correctly: I wrote recently about how the collection of good, fruitful open problems is now being mined in a non-renewable fashion, leading to the potential scenario of these problems becoming scarce [0] Often these solutions are announced in a rush, leaving no time for a proper writeup, the isolation of new methods and ideas, and citing relevant previous work of others. As in all creative professions, this raises severe attribution and plagiarism questions. [1] > It's that a bare proof made by a machine doesn't actually do much for us. I get it, and I think the same can be said about all sorts of human endeavors. > There is not some set of problems that, once finished, will amount to some kind of final, correct system and we can call it a day and, like, utilize it. Sure. Although there are certainly practical applications to be found along the way. E.g. proving P=NP would be potentially very significant in the real world. I think we agree. > "Mathematics" is the people doing it (the "mathematical community" Tao references below) Sure. And the same can be said again about all sort of human endeavors. But I don't see how that is a reason to stop using AI in those fields, either. It doesn't subtract anything, in the same way that chess engines didn't destroy the love of the game for chess. And just like in chess, these AIs can be used to gain a deeper understanding. Including, but not limited to, explaining to humans the proof they just came up with. [0] https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237320796901560 https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117237320796901560 [1] https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignment-of-ai-in-mathematics/ https://terrytao.wordpress.com/2026/09/11/a-severe-misalignm...
      - beepbooptheory 21d ago
        Are you trying to argue toward some final verdict with regard to LLMs and mathematics? I thought you were just trying to make a comparison to Baudelaire? I think maybe being clearer on this point would help. Even if you argued sufficiently for the latter (which is going to be tough already), it wouldn't really speak to the former. Or at least: that would have to be a separate argument I think. Also, how, in your words, do you feel like the first quote justifies your point (presumably with regard to the question of "interesting" or not)? And why do you think the second one is more about time itself rather than attribution? Do these things actually contradict the letter above (or the comment on it) in your mind or not? In general, do you disagree with something here specifically? Or is it kind of a yes/and thing? Does any of this help, in your mind, with the Baudelaire comparison you were at least at one point trying to argue for? Its a bit hard for me to see the argument here, if there is one, just with what you have written. But I am sure I am just not knowledgeable enough to grasp the argument!
  - robotpepi 21d ago
    I don't see any meaningful analogy with your cites of Baudelaire. First of all, Baudelaire discusses art, which is very different to science. Several new forms of art have emerged, and then slowly integrated, despite the strong opinions of some. Here, Tao's letter discusses mainly practical aspect of scientific research. It is not about what a "failed mathematician" would do, or if "LLM can only record what already existed"; in fact, it ackowledges that LLM could become a central tool. If you want me to be even more precise, what they're saying (without saying it out loud) is that tech companies have too much power and are being irrespondible with it because they don't even think about the externalities.
    - shimman 21d ago
      Of course there's a meaningful analogy. The poster wants to make Tao sound unreasonable and against "progress" while ignoring the very real concerns Tao has. It's what fanatics do when they want to enforce their view on the world, they have to attack anyone with a reasonable viewpoint because they can't imagine a world where someone tells them they don't like what they're doing.
      - david-gpu 21d ago
        I do not want to make him sound unreasonable. He is a brilliant man. But I also think that he is a bit shell shocked, much like other luminaries in the past have been when confronted with rapid technological development, so I wanted to highlight some historical similarities, imperfect as they can only be. As for the rest of your comment, I hope you have a great day.
        GPerson 21d ago
        He’s not shell-shocked. He’s had an extremely consistent narrative for years now. You are experiencing a bias where you project your own views onto others, probably because you are not very informed on this.
        robotpepi 21d ago
        > But I also think that he is a bit shell shocked, much like other luminaries in the past have been when confronted with rapid technological development You're locked into that idea, but provide no real argument. The dangers they describe in the letter are real.
joe_the_user 21d ago
But the point is your original analogy with Baudelaire now just boils down to "both of them were critical" which is quite shallow indeed. It's especially annoying given that many people are making repeat Baudelaire's critique of photography (or Socrates critique of writing) in the context of AI and the declaration is interest because it's not that.
gjulianm 21d ago
There are no similarities whatsoever, other than them having opinions on a new tech that affects their field. > nothing stops mathematicians from doing both of those things Actually yes, and they explain that pretty clearly in the letter. These problems have been used as "goals" not because the solutions are necessarily worth it, but because they set a clear direction whose process would probably yield very useful theories, and also more conjectures and problems. If the goals get solved by AI models that do not generate comprehension, then the direction gets less clear, it's harder to collaborate and get funding (think what would be easier, to get funding to try and solve Navier-Stokes or to try and understand an already proven Navier-Stokes?), and we get less open problems to work on.
- bonoboTP 21d ago
  > get funding It all comes down to this. Yes, they will need to give a good and convincing argument to the taxpayer. And at the end of the day, if the circumstances change, and you're unsuccessful in making your case in your plead, the taxpayer and their representatives may not want to keep the same level of funding and instead put that money to use elsewhere. So make a good argument why your job is still worth that cash under the new circumstances. The argument can appeal to aesthetics and art and philosophy and a kind of feeling of religious elegance and so on, it's fine. I can't say how well that will work, but it's worth a try. Taxes also fund theology and other pursuits with no tie to cold hard engineering etc. But that level of funding is not the same as for math currently. That gap may shrink.
  - gjulianm 20d ago
    I don’t get the argument you are making. If you want to reduce funding for mathematics research, argue for that. But wanting to make getting funding and coordination and collaboration harder in exchange for nothing other than PR for AI labs does not make sense
    - bonoboTP 20d ago
      Is it just PR? Okay then the useful math can be done by AI and we can leave aesthetic math to human academics who will ascetically refrain from using AI and if anyone of them submits a paper and it turns out they used computers they will be treated like WADA treats Olympians on steroids or chess players with a vibrator up their ass telling them what move to take. But again the taxpayer may not foot the bill for this endeavor as much as they did while thinking it may be useful for technology, science and engineering innovation.