3 ms·

The maths community is now in the antithesis phase, synthesis will take a while ;) Lee Sedol said in an interview that "losing to AI, in a sense, meant my enti

The maths community is now in the antithesis phase, synthesis will take a while ;) Lee Sedol said in an interview that "losing to AI, in a sense, meant my entire world was collapsing. ... I could no longer enjoy the game. So I retired", and I think there will be folks in the mathematical community who would feel the same when the solutions pages to hard problems are suddenly available. But on the other hand, people learned a lot from chess engines. After decades of chess computers beating humans, there was still a renewed interest in watching Leela beat Stockfish, with many people trying to understand the strategy Leela used. If your happiness comes from grinding on a problem and making progress, the prospect of having to dig through a corpus of AI-generated proofs might be hard to swallow. But if you're willing to do that, you will still find beautiful things that only so many people can truly appreciate.

318274 15d ago
Chess is kept afloat by a couple of billionaires like Sinquefield, MBS and the guy who sponsors freestyle (Fisher random) chess. Carlsen is bored by studying engine lines. The popularity is boosted by YouTubers because chess is very suitable for somewhat higher class content. I'm not sure we'd want that world for math. Positions will be cut just like archaeologist positions are cut now.
- mna_ 15d ago
  Chess is kept afloat by chess players, not by billionaires. If all the billionaire backers stopped sponsoring tournaments, people like me would still play, still pay for chess club memberships, still pay entry fees for tournaments, and still buy chess books, and so on.
  - debatem1 15d ago
    Also, you learn to be a better chess player by... playing better players. The widespread availability of chess engines has made flawless opponents available to every player. If your goals are understanding the game, self improvement, building thinking skills-- this is the best chess has ever been. It's only if your goal is to beat every opponent you can find that chess is in a bad place.
    - ArcHound 15d ago
      It's not that easy. Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least). Even if you don't blunder anything, you'll still find yourself in a worse position without any clue as of what went wrong and why. Whereas when playing humans, they can usually explain their approach and when they noticed errors in your play.
      - Quekid5 15d ago
        > Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least). It's the same for Magnus Carlsen. Even with Queen odds, Stockfish is literally unbeatable for the best players in the world. It's just too strong at evaluating all kinds of random tangent moves (and ensuing positional advantage) which no human player can possibly pay attention due to the time required. Stockfish vs any human is like Carlsen vs other players by about 3-5 orders of magnitude[0]. It's that stark. [0] A wild pun appears. EDIT: To avoid having to respond to each responder, fair comments about Queen odds. Maybe I was thinking Rook odds? Also, I kinda lumped Stockfish in with all the other engines, but I realize there are other engines with different properties ofc.
        ArcHound 15d ago
        No worries, I know stockfish is unbeatable by humans. But sometimes, these GMs can flag it, which counts as a win (especially when it's proxied by a cheater). Sometimes they can also explain the idea that cost them the game, so they've learned something maybe. Whereas us scrubs literally cannot do anything at all for reasons completely beyond our understanding.
        jacobolus 15d ago
        > Whereas us scrubs literally cannot do anything at all for reasons completely beyond our understanding Computer moves are typically much more concrete than human moves: a human will play based on pattern matching ("intuition") and can only make explicit calculation of a small fraction of possibilities, after which decisions are guided by guesswork. The computers are unbeatable in practice because they can calculate concretely in seconds what might take an expert human long intensive study to notice, and they don't make the same kinds of oversights humans can make. But if you stop and explore a particular position for an extended time, and if you have an intermediate level of chess skill, you too can probably often (usually?) figure out why it's doing something. Sometimes understanding the computer's reasons takes searching multiple branches of a tree several unlikely looking moves deep, but the collection of threats the computer was preemptively thwarting, traps it was setting, etc. are comprehensible to humans with enough effort, especially in games between the computer and a human. The frustrating thing about playing against the computer is that it notices and thwarts every plan you might come up with, before you make up the plan yourself, and it doesn't make (human-apparent) mistakes, so the game ends up feeling hopeless. Nothing you try works on it, and if your idea is even slightly inaccurate it will be exploited.
  - magicalist 15d ago
    I mean, this is the problem with analogies and trying to use them to prove things, right? People working through problems from an analysis book with their friend (or an LLM) is not the same as research mathematics. People playing in a chess club is not the same as what makes for a good chess tournament. Lumping everything together is just making this branch of the conversation less relevant.
  - psvv 15d ago
    I think the parent comment meant professional, high-level chess. The kind people get played to play, not just do for a hobby. That's absolutely on life support. I'm not sure what the equivalent would look like in the math field, but it probably involves a lot of mathematicians losing their jobs and the quality of human-produced math decreasing overall. The quality of the math in general would be fine, since in this scenario cpus will keep producing it. The quality of cpu-cpu chess games is quite high, beyond human understanding in many cases. Chess is a weird example because it doesn't really have any utility beyond itself. Even pure math sometimes ends up having use in the strangest places. Although if no one understands the frontier math (because no one is getting paid to), I'm not sure it even matters what the quality of the cpu math is? It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound?
    - fidotron 15d ago
      > It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound? But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs. It's kind of surprising so many mathematicians act surprised by this given this was clearly where automated proof assistants would lead. I guess they assumed they'd always be the ones guiding them.
      - magicalist 15d ago
        [dead]
      - mb7733 15d ago
        > But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs. What is the purpose of that? Its like art being produced for AI to consume. What is gained from that?
        fidotron 15d ago
        Well if it proves useless presumably they'd stop doing it. But if AI is to recursively self improve understanding and evolving its own foundations, which are clearly mathematical, is essential. There is no need for humans to grasp what is going on in that loop.
- deleted 15d ago
  [deleted]
- Quekid5 15d ago
  Chess is a fun game. That's why it's been around for 1000+ years. There was a renaissance during Covid and due to 'The Queen's Gambit' where it gained much more mainstream popularity, but... Chess AI was already far far (like 1000+ Elo) ahead of human players at that point. The thing is... chess is humans playing (communicating) with humans and that's what keeps it interesting. Check out the view counts of chess AI tourneys vs. human tourneys.
robotpepi 15d ago
I really hate this overly condescending takes. First of all, what do you know about the internals of math research that allows you to speak with so much confidence. Second, you're not even addressing the issues raised by the letter! This is not about "oh they made a bunch of problems easier". There are huge economical interest behind: who owns and has access to models? are these companies interested in developing research or they just grind PR stunts without worrying about externalities in how research is actually conducted? Etc etc.
- Bourget 15d ago
  If it's worth anything: I have a PhD in (theoretical) mathematics and I entirely stand by stabbles' comment. There is a real, undeniable possibility of AI becoming better at mathematics in the same way that it became better at chess and Go, and in such a scenario, one may expect the community's response to be comparable.
  - 3ash14 15d ago
    Stockfish isn't owned by a club of three trillionaires. It does not cost $15 million to achieve a result in Stockfish. Stockfish does not steal research or scoop researchers. The concentration of computing resources and capital should be examined by the math community.
    - coderenegade 15d ago
      This is the real problem. We're looking at a future where those who control AI have an insurmountable advantage in everything. They can control the amount of intelligence the masses have access to -- for their own safety, of course -- and they will never, ever be able to close the gap.
      - tomrod 14d ago
        Say they do. What then? Will people buy from them? What if we decide not to?
ryhminghistory 15d ago
[flagged]

318274 15d ago

Chess is kept afloat by a couple of billionaires like Sinquefield, MBS and the guy who sponsors freestyle (Fisher random) chess. Carlsen is bored by studying engine lines. The popularity is boosted by YouTubers because chess is very suitable for somewhat higher class content. I'm not sure we'd want that world for math. Positions will be cut just like archaeologist positions are cut now.

mna_ 15d ago
Chess is kept afloat by chess players, not by billionaires. If all the billionaire backers stopped sponsoring tournaments, people like me would still play, still pay for chess club memberships, still pay entry fees for tournaments, and still buy chess books, and so on.
- debatem1 15d ago
  Also, you learn to be a better chess player by... playing better players. The widespread availability of chess engines has made flawless opponents available to every player. If your goals are understanding the game, self improvement, building thinking skills-- this is the best chess has ever been. It's only if your goal is to beat every opponent you can find that chess is in a bad place.
  - ArcHound 15d ago
    It's not that easy. Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least). Even if you don't blunder anything, you'll still find yourself in a worse position without any clue as of what went wrong and why. Whereas when playing humans, they can usually explain their approach and when they noticed errors in your play.
    - Quekid5 15d ago
      > Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least). It's the same for Magnus Carlsen. Even with Queen odds, Stockfish is literally unbeatable for the best players in the world. It's just too strong at evaluating all kinds of random tangent moves (and ensuing positional advantage) which no human player can possibly pay attention due to the time required. Stockfish vs any human is like Carlsen vs other players by about 3-5 orders of magnitude[0]. It's that stark. [0] A wild pun appears. EDIT: To avoid having to respond to each responder, fair comments about Queen odds. Maybe I was thinking Rook odds? Also, I kinda lumped Stockfish in with all the other engines, but I realize there are other engines with different properties ofc.
      - ArcHound 15d ago
        No worries, I know stockfish is unbeatable by humans. But sometimes, these GMs can flag it, which counts as a win (especially when it's proxied by a cheater). Sometimes they can also explain the idea that cost them the game, so they've learned something maybe. Whereas us scrubs literally cannot do anything at all for reasons completely beyond our understanding.
        jacobolus 15d ago
        > Whereas us scrubs literally cannot do anything at all for reasons completely beyond our understanding Computer moves are typically much more concrete than human moves: a human will play based on pattern matching ("intuition") and can only make explicit calculation of a small fraction of possibilities, after which decisions are guided by guesswork. The computers are unbeatable in practice because they can calculate concretely in seconds what might take an expert human long intensive study to notice, and they don't make the same kinds of oversights humans can make. But if you stop and explore a particular position for an extended time, and if you have an intermediate level of chess skill, you too can probably often (usually?) figure out why it's doing something. Sometimes understanding the computer's reasons takes searching multiple branches of a tree several unlikely looking moves deep, but the collection of threats the computer was preemptively thwarting, traps it was setting, etc. are comprehensible to humans with enough effort, especially in games between the computer and a human. The frustrating thing about playing against the computer is that it notices and thwarts every plan you might come up with, before you make up the plan yourself, and it doesn't make (human-apparent) mistakes, so the game ends up feeling hopeless. Nothing you try works on it, and if your idea is even slightly inaccurate it will be exploited.
- magicalist 15d ago
  I mean, this is the problem with analogies and trying to use them to prove things, right? People working through problems from an analysis book with their friend (or an LLM) is not the same as research mathematics. People playing in a chess club is not the same as what makes for a good chess tournament. Lumping everything together is just making this branch of the conversation less relevant.
- psvv 15d ago
  I think the parent comment meant professional, high-level chess. The kind people get played to play, not just do for a hobby. That's absolutely on life support. I'm not sure what the equivalent would look like in the math field, but it probably involves a lot of mathematicians losing their jobs and the quality of human-produced math decreasing overall. The quality of the math in general would be fine, since in this scenario cpus will keep producing it. The quality of cpu-cpu chess games is quite high, beyond human understanding in many cases. Chess is a weird example because it doesn't really have any utility beyond itself. Even pure math sometimes ends up having use in the strangest places. Although if no one understands the frontier math (because no one is getting paid to), I'm not sure it even matters what the quality of the cpu math is? It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound?
  - fidotron 15d ago
    > It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound? But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs. It's kind of surprising so many mathematicians act surprised by this given this was clearly where automated proof assistants would lead. I guess they assumed they'd always be the ones guiding them.
    - magicalist 15d ago
      [dead]
    - mb7733 15d ago
      > But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs. What is the purpose of that? Its like art being produced for AI to consume. What is gained from that?
      - fidotron 15d ago
        Well if it proves useless presumably they'd stop doing it. But if AI is to recursively self improve understanding and evolving its own foundations, which are clearly mathematical, is essential. There is no need for humans to grasp what is going on in that loop.
deleted 15d ago
[deleted]
Quekid5 15d ago
Chess is a fun game. That's why it's been around for 1000+ years. There was a renaissance during Covid and due to 'The Queen's Gambit' where it gained much more mainstream popularity, but... Chess AI was already far far (like 1000+ Elo) ahead of human players at that point. The thing is... chess is humans playing (communicating) with humans and that's what keeps it interesting. Check out the view counts of chess AI tourneys vs. human tourneys.

robotpepi 15d ago

I really hate this overly condescending takes. First of all, what do you know about the internals of math research that allows you to speak with so much confidence. Second, you're not even addressing the issues raised by the letter! This is not about "oh they made a bunch of problems easier". There are huge economical interest behind: who owns and has access to models? are these companies interested in developing research or they just grind PR stunts without worrying about externalities in how research is actually conducted? Etc etc.

Bourget 15d ago
If it's worth anything: I have a PhD in (theoretical) mathematics and I entirely stand by stabbles' comment. There is a real, undeniable possibility of AI becoming better at mathematics in the same way that it became better at chess and Go, and in such a scenario, one may expect the community's response to be comparable.
- 3ash14 15d ago
  Stockfish isn't owned by a club of three trillionaires. It does not cost $15 million to achieve a result in Stockfish. Stockfish does not steal research or scoop researchers. The concentration of computing resources and capital should be examined by the math community.
  - coderenegade 15d ago
    This is the real problem. We're looking at a future where those who control AI have an insurmountable advantage in everything. They can control the amount of intelligence the masses have access to -- for their own safety, of course -- and they will never, ever be able to close the gap.
    - tomrod 14d ago
      Say they do. What then? Will people buy from them? What if we decide not to?

ryhminghistory 15d ago

[flagged]