> I read the article and they are all wrong I would recommend a bit more humility and trying to better understand why 25 Fields medalists, among them people li

> I read the article and they are all wrong I would recommend a bit more humility and trying to better understand why 25 Fields medalists, among them people like Terence Tao (who isn't anti-AI by any means, he's even promoted a registry of AI Lean proofs), are saying this. > Okay, to elaborate, substantively, their point is that the people using these AI models are not doing it for the love of the game, but for marketing. No. The point is that AI companies are using the models to solve problems in such a way that the useful part of problem-solving, i.e. the theories and tools developed during the process, is not present. And they are doing that because the companies seem to be motivated not by honest advancement of math but by marketing and publicity. > they synthesize and solve lots of other problems nobody asked for. No one asked Fourier to solve series representation of functions when he was studying the heat equation, and yet thanks to that we have Fourier analysis. > if they want to remain relevant as academics and mathematicians, they need to learn how to replicate the proofs and the steps that alluded humans for decades The point they are making is that if AI keeps being used as "problem solver" rather than "theory understanding", replicating the proofs and getting the useful parts out of them will be far more difficult.