>I suppose you are suggesting that research mathematicians are either over-qualified mathematically and/or under-qualified in ability to teach, but it seems pre

>I suppose you are suggesting that research mathematicians are either over-qualified mathematically and/or under-qualified in ability to teach, but it seems pretty clear that universities prefer to hire domain experts whose reputations and long publication lists attract students and raise the perceived academic standards of the school. I'm saying there's little correlation in how brilliant a researcher you are and your teaching abilities. Yes universities optimize for the former. That's not necessarily a good thing for students even if it increases the prestige for the university. If there's some future where research and teaching are decoupled, I don't expect things to remain the same, but who knows I guess. >I was pointing out that giving a free research tool to mathematicians would likely be better received, and receive better press, than doing something that most top-tier mathematicians are opposed to. At least currently, it's not possible for this to be a free tool. Both OpenAI and Anthropic have discounts for Universities/Education for such use cases as far as I'm aware. >As far as the AI companies acting in slimy fashion goes, the most slimy behavior of all is to strongly believe you are doing something that will kill people and cause massive societal disruption ... and still keep doing it. This is pretty bad, but I wouldn't call it slimy. And it's no longer up to any one person or company anymore.