4 ms·

I think as a civilization we need to postulate a new term: “purpose death” Defined something like: temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the

I think as a civilization we need to postulate a new term: “purpose death” Defined something like: temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the experience of existential dread from never achieving self-actualization in spite of the tremendous time commitment towards excellence in a now automated intelligence. I truly think because of the pace of innovation this will be a universal feeling for every human for the rest of existence. As a software engineer, I myself have only recently recovered from it. So, it’s really interesting to watch a prominent figure in their industry publicly go through “purpose death” and the related grief. It’ll be a useful case study to re-read his written meditations through this cycle. I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase I’m sure he wisely kept off the Internet, and is currently in the bargaining phase - ie scrambling to change the goal posts. I wonder if he will wisely keep the depression / burnout phases also off the internet. However, soon as the goalposts keep falling, I think like most humans he will accept, retool, and come out of this grief with renewed purpose with larger expectations of himself and mathematics. This recent post even starts towards some of that - but sadly is slightly off the mark. “The important question is, therefore, not whether AI will defeat mathematicians, but which mathematical ends we want AI to serve.” He still thinks there is controlling AI. AI will run and trample anything that stays in front of it. He needs to one day find acceptance in letting AI run while he learns how to suggest it minor course corrections which it may or may not accept, and when it doesn’t accept quickly learn from the AI why he was right or wrong. I maybe wrong, but I think this is the cycle of “purpose death” we will all have to contend with in our own time.

camillomiller 20d ago
I invite you to consider that your doomer views on AI trampling everything in front of it humanize the technology and give it an agency that is in fact in the hands of its creators. It’s very convenient for them to make people think they have no control over their creation. It’s like Facebook claiming they’re not a publisher but on steroids
- rnewme 20d ago
  Except that your view doesn't change the reality, and both views are true at the same time.
  - camillomiller 20d ago
    So you decide that the reality is another view and that's settled?
    - yazaddaruvala 19d ago
      Look, I could be wrong. That said, I think AI is both in some conversations a tool and in some conversations it’s short hand for “Capitalistic Acceleration”. With each iteration of RSI, this second context is increasingly the more important mental model. Maybe reread my comments in both contexts. Capitalistic acceleration will most definitely keep trampling on anything in front of it. Because, the humans with capital will steer it that way. Eg OpenAI steering the “AI the tool” at Navier Stokes on a rumor (inaccurate as we found out) of Anthropic having solved it.
jacobolus 20d ago
The authors of this piece are Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede. It is hosted at Terence Tao's blog, but he did not write it.
- gwt4life 20d ago
  AI could have told him this
- hyperhello 20d ago
  > But AI breaks that correlation, for the same reason it separates the two notions of proof. So, even genuine solutions would not satisfy us. This is not moving the goalposts but recognizing that any specific goalpost is inadequate. If mathematics is a game, it is an infinite one. This attitude is not reactionary. We reject both It was pure Not X It’s Y for so long i naturally assumed it was AI written.
malux85 20d ago
I would argue that purpose death is a normal step towards enlightenment and it was only the fierce, unrelenting, all consuming drive of capitalism in the western world over the last 4 or 5 generations that have pushed everyone to define themselves (nearly) solely in terms of their work. I do not at all feel purpose death from AI (been a software developer professionally for 20 years, now a founder), but I consider myself a lifelong learner, with infinite curiosity, in a universe with infinite challenges. Any interruption or automation to what Im currently doing will just open the door to exploring new and different things. This doesnt come from an immediate desire to do anything different, but having the confidence that whatever comes along, I will figure it out and have a lot of fun doing so.
- alansaber 20d ago
  I agree with this. The substansive counterarguments all revolve around the short-term economic and emotional instability this causes
- cubefox 20d ago
  > Any interruption or automation to what Im currently doing will just open the door to exploring new and different things. But that's the rub: At some point, possibly sooner than most people think, there won't be anything left that isn't automated. Any human trying to do something new will then be worse at achieving it, and likely even detrimental. Just like the monetary value of horse labor today isn't just small, it's actually negative.
  - yunwal 19d ago
    Literally no person on earth can beat a computer in chess. Practically no person on earth can really teach a computer anything about chess. For some crazy reason, people keep playing
    - cubefox 19d ago
      Sure, but play is different from work.
robotpepi 20d ago
> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase What are these comments? Tao, in particular, has been pro AI since years ago...
skissane 20d ago
> I truly think because of the pace of innovation this will be a universal feeling for every human for the rest of existence. Why would it be? Imagine a man who is a student in a kollel in Kiryas Joel. He spends his day studying the Torah, Tanach, Mishnah, Talmud, the Mishneh Torah, the Shulchan Aruch, the Zohar, etc. Then at night he goes home to his wife and 12 kids. Do you think he experiences "purpose death"? Do you think his wife does? Do you think his children will? Do you think AI is going to make them start? If anything, AI might make his lifestyle more economically sustainable than it was before – if nobody works because AI has taken all the jobs, and everyone gets paid universal basic income, he is no longer faced with the arduous struggle of supporting a large family as a full-time student. And there's nothing specific to Judaism about this – I'm sure in some seminary in Qom, you'll find the Usuli Twelver Shi'a analogue.
ifethereal 20d ago
I read > The important question is, therefore, not whether AI will defeat mathematicians, but which mathematical ends we want AI to serve. and had the opposite interpretation as I see you having. To me, it reads as the authors [1] acknowledging, as you put it, that > AI will run and trample anything that stays in front of it. and that mathematicians need to find out where they want to go: > Rather, it is an opportunity to clarify what mathematics is all about. We should ask again what we are after when we do mathematics. This surely does involve purpose death, but also purpose rebirth. [1]: Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede, instead of Terence Tao, although I imagine Terence endorses the message.
- yazaddaruvala 19d ago
  > and that mathematicians need to find out where they want to go I think you’re right that mechanically I’m saying the same thing as they are saying “use AI to build your dreams”. I think the psychology is the difference. Specially, “oh it can now do that too” has to be met with “finally” rather than “no way! That was supposed to be human only”. eg “what are we after?” Is also likely a question that will be solved by AI in N years after mathematicians chip at it for all that time. Any and every singular focus will be eliminated. There will be more tho to work on - that’s where the purpose rebirth is. I think. Maybe said differently, I think one day these same authors will write the post - “more of math is handled by AI. It doesn’t matter. We will work on the infinite amount of it that’s left. Whatever that happens to be, even when we are surprised it wasn’t what we tried to control it to be.” That will be acceptance. That we’ll be purpose rebirth.
keiferski 20d ago
Most people don’t reach self-actualization and never have. This has nothing to do with AI. With regards to technology specifically, new tech has been making high-investment skills useless for the last 500+ years. The printing press, the loom, etc. This is not anything new. Some of these AI doomers really need to read more than AI Substacks and Twitter feeds. I suggest a book about the history of technology. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we make an effort to direct a technology in certain directions. It is not reasonable to throw all rational thought out the window and operate as if real world AI is synonymous with science fiction.
OroPla 20d ago
> temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the experience of existential dread from never achieving self-actualization in spite of the tremendous time commitment towards excellence in a now automated intelligence > this will be a universal feeling for every human for the rest of existence As someone that has accepted a very long time ago that nihilism is the only self-consistent philosophy, I've made peace with the fact that humanity has no purpose and therefore disagree with your conclusion. I haven't been driven to absurdism, either. Instead, I derive purpose and self-worth from within.
- 9dev 20d ago
  Even if you cannot derive purpose from inherent love toward yourself, you can still at least take pleasure in existing, being incredibly privileged to enjoy the greatest show there ever is. Nothing beats the beauty of nature, and being here to enjoy everything life has to offer for a while is a wonderful thing on its own, even if you don’t contribute anything to it.
- yazaddaruvala 19d ago
  I’m glad you found something that works well for you. For me, nihilism is much like ice cream: I don’t want it in my fridge - not because I think it’ll taste bad, but because I think it’s gonna taste real good.
  - OroPla 19d ago
    I'd rather compare it to Linux. You are in charge of your own destiny.
    - yazaddaruvala 18d ago
      I like that!
emerongi 20d ago
> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase I’m sure he wisely kept off the Internet, and is currently in the bargaining phase - ie scrambling to change the goal posts. I wonder if he will wisely keep the depression / burnout phases also off the internet. You're making up a narrative about another person. You have no clue what's happening to him, without talking to him.
- aaron695 20d ago
  [dead]
- suddenlybananas 20d ago
  Not only that, but this blogpost wasn't written by Tao.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 19d ago
    And he's called Terence, not "Terrance".
    - yazaddaruvala 18d ago
      Oh dang… sorry that I fucked that up.
  - trashface 19d ago
    The Tao is eternal. The game plays the game.
- eru 19d ago
  And the whole stages of grief model was just made up anyway.
- deleted 19d ago
  [deleted]
- yazaddaruvala 18d ago
  Yes, I am making up a narrative. That’s why I used words like “postulate”, “think”, “I wonder”, and “I may be wrong”.
raphman 20d ago
I don't think that "death" is the perfect word here - it typically describes a permanent state. FWIW, what you describe ("temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose") is called "Sinnkrise" in German (crisis of meaning/purpose). (And because not everybody might know: the comment references Kübler-Ross' five stages of grief (when confronted with a tragic outlook)¹: denial → anger → bargaining → depression → acceptance) ¹) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief
- yazaddaruvala 19d ago
  Thanks for the German word. I can’t read most of the literature, but initial glance it does indeed seem the same. FWIW I never enjoy naming things lol. I agree death and temporary seem at odds. “Purpose Loss” didn’t have the same gusto. I mostly riffed the vocabulary and definition off “Ego Death” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death
icepush 20d ago
I, on the other hand, don't want to be a permanent serf to whoever manages to merge their brain with ASI first and think it's high time we begin decommissioning datacenters through direct action.
- rdedev 20d ago
  I hope what happens in the original deus ex game happens here then, that the ASI does not want to merge with a human who wants it only for base desires
rdedev 20d ago
> AI will run and trample anything that stays in front of it. Right now that entirely depends on the whims of a few people. We can try to make it not be that but I don't have much hope in that area. See climate change > As a software engineer, I myself have only recently recovered from it Can I ask you how you came here? Right now I am getting closer to "purpose death" as you call it. Software engineering is one of the few things I am good at and the only thing that I can rely on to put food on my table. Even if I end up being someone who gives minor suggestions to the AI, it always feels like C level execs can't wait to get rid of me
- pylua 20d ago
  It’s not the execs, it’s the economic pressures. If they don’t cut cost someone else will. For the record I feel like I dm in your position also.
  - curt15 19d ago
    Since OpenAI is undoubtedly also under economic pressure, why is it still hiring humans for Account Associates, Android Engineers, Data Scientists instead of demonstrating its AI prowess by automating those roles? https://openai.com/careers/search/ https://openai.com/careers/search/
    - fragmede 18d ago
      To use the humans to generate training data for the AI to learn from.
- yazaddaruvala 19d ago
  You might also be going though purpose death which is an emotional concern related to thriving, but I think your bigger emotional concern is related to survival. This answer is the same as ever - race to financial freedom. Live under your means. Invest wisely. Survive till you hit your milestones. Meanwhile, I really don’t believe the narrative about fewer jobs. As long as you’re curious, as long as you continue learning, the new tools and focus on the parts of your current job that involve judgment you will continue putting food on your table as long as you are alive. Use any and every tool you have to save the people around you time, and the C level will continually fight to keep you. When AI gets good at something you are good at - great use the time (accelerated by using AI for self help) to find another thing you’re good at the AI isn’t yet. Make sure you have 3-4 things you’re good at at any given time so as AI gets good you have redundancy.
wffurr 20d ago
Top comment on this post taking "reply to the title" to the next level.
- omnicognate 20d ago
  Quite. And unfortunately they opted for a clever, punny title that implies the exact opposite of what the article says.
GPerson 20d ago
I’m just going to say this 100 times I guess. Terence Tao has had a very consistent narrative on AI in math for a very long time, at least since 2023. He’s always described it as a surprisingly good tool and has advocated that mathematicians adopt the technology without becoming totally reliant on it. He’s also always argued that mathematics is fundamentally about human understanding. There’s no change in his messaging recently on the basic narratives. It is not right to project one’s grief onto others and then characterize all their actions through this lens! (This post is attributed to other people and doesn’t sound like his voice by the way, which highlights the problem with doing so.) And it’s especially wrong to pose what looks like a therapy diagnosis on a stranger in public as a non-expert.
- curt15 19d ago
  > He’s also always argued that mathematics is fundamentally about human understanding. It's also worth pointing out he didn't come up with this viewpoint just to "cope" with the headlines. Thurston articulated this way back in the 90s (https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9404236 https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9404236) and also more recently (https://mathoverflow.net/questions/43690/whats-a-mathematician-to-do https://mathoverflow.net/questions/43690/whats-a-mathematici...): > The product of mathematics is clarity and understanding. Not theorems, by themselves. Is there, for example any real reason that even such famous results as Fermat's Last Theorem, or the Poincaré conjecture, really matter? Their real importance is not in their specific statements, but their role in challenging our understanding, presenting challenges that led to mathematical developments that increased our understanding.
quickthrowman 20d ago
> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, … There’s a byline at the top of the article that lists the authors of this blog post, neither of which are Terry Tao. > [This is a guest post by Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.]
mikhailfranco 20d ago
The blog post was not written by Terry Tao :)
eetde 19d ago
This goal post stuff is tiresome. The only thing it reveals is how poor humans are predicting and defining things.
bbor 19d ago
That is the definition of an existential crisis, btw. I like the neologism too, tho
casey2 19d ago
But this is mathematics, modern mathematics had it's purpose death decades if not centuries ago. People got into it over the last 60-100 years for autistic reasons, now that AI has got rid of those reasons you'd have to be even more autistic to entertain the idea. But plenty of people are, and more tech = more mental illness so it'll probably be a wash.
KolenCh 19d ago
[dead]
corimaith 13d ago
No. This isn't a problem for people who didn't define themselves by what they produce in the first place. The "otaku" of the old didn't have that problem, precisely because they were defined by their desires and ambitions, and how to realize them, not be dragged down into the drudgery of implementation.

camillomiller 20d ago

I invite you to consider that your doomer views on AI trampling everything in front of it humanize the technology and give it an agency that is in fact in the hands of its creators. It’s very convenient for them to make people think they have no control over their creation. It’s like Facebook claiming they’re not a publisher but on steroids

rnewme 20d ago
Except that your view doesn't change the reality, and both views are true at the same time.
- camillomiller 20d ago
  So you decide that the reality is another view and that's settled?
  - yazaddaruvala 19d ago
    Look, I could be wrong. That said, I think AI is both in some conversations a tool and in some conversations it’s short hand for “Capitalistic Acceleration”. With each iteration of RSI, this second context is increasingly the more important mental model. Maybe reread my comments in both contexts. Capitalistic acceleration will most definitely keep trampling on anything in front of it. Because, the humans with capital will steer it that way. Eg OpenAI steering the “AI the tool” at Navier Stokes on a rumor (inaccurate as we found out) of Anthropic having solved it.

jacobolus 20d ago

The authors of this piece are Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede. It is hosted at Terence Tao's blog, but he did not write it.

gwt4life 20d ago
AI could have told him this
hyperhello 20d ago
> But AI breaks that correlation, for the same reason it separates the two notions of proof. So, even genuine solutions would not satisfy us. This is not moving the goalposts but recognizing that any specific goalpost is inadequate. If mathematics is a game, it is an infinite one. This attitude is not reactionary. We reject both It was pure Not X It’s Y for so long i naturally assumed it was AI written.

malux85 20d ago

I would argue that purpose death is a normal step towards enlightenment and it was only the fierce, unrelenting, all consuming drive of capitalism in the western world over the last 4 or 5 generations that have pushed everyone to define themselves (nearly) solely in terms of their work. I do not at all feel purpose death from AI (been a software developer professionally for 20 years, now a founder), but I consider myself a lifelong learner, with infinite curiosity, in a universe with infinite challenges. Any interruption or automation to what Im currently doing will just open the door to exploring new and different things. This doesnt come from an immediate desire to do anything different, but having the confidence that whatever comes along, I will figure it out and have a lot of fun doing so.

alansaber 20d ago
I agree with this. The substansive counterarguments all revolve around the short-term economic and emotional instability this causes
cubefox 20d ago
> Any interruption or automation to what Im currently doing will just open the door to exploring new and different things. But that's the rub: At some point, possibly sooner than most people think, there won't be anything left that isn't automated. Any human trying to do something new will then be worse at achieving it, and likely even detrimental. Just like the monetary value of horse labor today isn't just small, it's actually negative.
- yunwal 19d ago
  Literally no person on earth can beat a computer in chess. Practically no person on earth can really teach a computer anything about chess. For some crazy reason, people keep playing
  - cubefox 19d ago
    Sure, but play is different from work.

robotpepi 20d ago

> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase What are these comments? Tao, in particular, has been pro AI since years ago...

skissane 20d ago

> I truly think because of the pace of innovation this will be a universal feeling for every human for the rest of existence. Why would it be? Imagine a man who is a student in a kollel in Kiryas Joel. He spends his day studying the Torah, Tanach, Mishnah, Talmud, the Mishneh Torah, the Shulchan Aruch, the Zohar, etc. Then at night he goes home to his wife and 12 kids. Do you think he experiences "purpose death"? Do you think his wife does? Do you think his children will? Do you think AI is going to make them start? If anything, AI might make his lifestyle more economically sustainable than it was before – if nobody works because AI has taken all the jobs, and everyone gets paid universal basic income, he is no longer faced with the arduous struggle of supporting a large family as a full-time student. And there's nothing specific to Judaism about this – I'm sure in some seminary in Qom, you'll find the Usuli Twelver Shi'a analogue.

ifethereal 20d ago

I read > The important question is, therefore, not whether AI will defeat mathematicians, but which mathematical ends we want AI to serve. and had the opposite interpretation as I see you having. To me, it reads as the authors [1] acknowledging, as you put it, that > AI will run and trample anything that stays in front of it. and that mathematicians need to find out where they want to go: > Rather, it is an opportunity to clarify what mathematics is all about. We should ask again what we are after when we do mathematics. This surely does involve purpose death, but also purpose rebirth. [1]: Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede, instead of Terence Tao, although I imagine Terence endorses the message.

yazaddaruvala 19d ago
> and that mathematicians need to find out where they want to go I think you’re right that mechanically I’m saying the same thing as they are saying “use AI to build your dreams”. I think the psychology is the difference. Specially, “oh it can now do that too” has to be met with “finally” rather than “no way! That was supposed to be human only”. eg “what are we after?” Is also likely a question that will be solved by AI in N years after mathematicians chip at it for all that time. Any and every singular focus will be eliminated. There will be more tho to work on - that’s where the purpose rebirth is. I think. Maybe said differently, I think one day these same authors will write the post - “more of math is handled by AI. It doesn’t matter. We will work on the infinite amount of it that’s left. Whatever that happens to be, even when we are surprised it wasn’t what we tried to control it to be.” That will be acceptance. That we’ll be purpose rebirth.

keiferski 20d ago

Most people don’t reach self-actualization and never have. This has nothing to do with AI. With regards to technology specifically, new tech has been making high-investment skills useless for the last 500+ years. The printing press, the loom, etc. This is not anything new. Some of these AI doomers really need to read more than AI Substacks and Twitter feeds. I suggest a book about the history of technology. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we make an effort to direct a technology in certain directions. It is not reasonable to throw all rational thought out the window and operate as if real world AI is synonymous with science fiction.

OroPla 20d ago

> temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose and the experience of existential dread from never achieving self-actualization in spite of the tremendous time commitment towards excellence in a now automated intelligence > this will be a universal feeling for every human for the rest of existence As someone that has accepted a very long time ago that nihilism is the only self-consistent philosophy, I've made peace with the fact that humanity has no purpose and therefore disagree with your conclusion. I haven't been driven to absurdism, either. Instead, I derive purpose and self-worth from within.

9dev 20d ago
Even if you cannot derive purpose from inherent love toward yourself, you can still at least take pleasure in existing, being incredibly privileged to enjoy the greatest show there ever is. Nothing beats the beauty of nature, and being here to enjoy everything life has to offer for a while is a wonderful thing on its own, even if you don’t contribute anything to it.
yazaddaruvala 19d ago
I’m glad you found something that works well for you. For me, nihilism is much like ice cream: I don’t want it in my fridge - not because I think it’ll taste bad, but because I think it’s gonna taste real good.
- OroPla 19d ago
  I'd rather compare it to Linux. You are in charge of your own destiny.
  - yazaddaruvala 18d ago
    I like that!

emerongi 20d ago

> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, the anger phase I’m sure he wisely kept off the Internet, and is currently in the bargaining phase - ie scrambling to change the goal posts. I wonder if he will wisely keep the depression / burnout phases also off the internet. You're making up a narrative about another person. You have no clue what's happening to him, without talking to him.

aaron695 20d ago
[dead]
suddenlybananas 20d ago
Not only that, but this blogpost wasn't written by Tao.
- YeGoblynQueenne 19d ago
  And he's called Terence, not "Terrance".
  - yazaddaruvala 18d ago
    Oh dang… sorry that I fucked that up.
- trashface 19d ago
  The Tao is eternal. The game plays the game.
eru 19d ago
And the whole stages of grief model was just made up anyway.
deleted 19d ago
[deleted]
yazaddaruvala 18d ago
Yes, I am making up a narrative. That’s why I used words like “postulate”, “think”, “I wonder”, and “I may be wrong”.

raphman 20d ago

I don't think that "death" is the perfect word here - it typically describes a permanent state. FWIW, what you describe ("temporary state of complete loss of personal purpose") is called "Sinnkrise" in German (crisis of meaning/purpose). (And because not everybody might know: the comment references Kübler-Ross' five stages of grief (when confronted with a tragic outlook)¹: denial → anger → bargaining → depression → acceptance) ¹) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_stages_of_grief

yazaddaruvala 19d ago
Thanks for the German word. I can’t read most of the literature, but initial glance it does indeed seem the same. FWIW I never enjoy naming things lol. I agree death and temporary seem at odds. “Purpose Loss” didn’t have the same gusto. I mostly riffed the vocabulary and definition off “Ego Death” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_death

icepush 20d ago

I, on the other hand, don't want to be a permanent serf to whoever manages to merge their brain with ASI first and think it's high time we begin decommissioning datacenters through direct action.

rdedev 20d ago
I hope what happens in the original deus ex game happens here then, that the ASI does not want to merge with a human who wants it only for base desires

rdedev 20d ago

> AI will run and trample anything that stays in front of it. Right now that entirely depends on the whims of a few people. We can try to make it not be that but I don't have much hope in that area. See climate change > As a software engineer, I myself have only recently recovered from it Can I ask you how you came here? Right now I am getting closer to "purpose death" as you call it. Software engineering is one of the few things I am good at and the only thing that I can rely on to put food on my table. Even if I end up being someone who gives minor suggestions to the AI, it always feels like C level execs can't wait to get rid of me

pylua 20d ago
It’s not the execs, it’s the economic pressures. If they don’t cut cost someone else will. For the record I feel like I dm in your position also.
- curt15 19d ago
  Since OpenAI is undoubtedly also under economic pressure, why is it still hiring humans for Account Associates, Android Engineers, Data Scientists instead of demonstrating its AI prowess by automating those roles? https://openai.com/careers/search/ https://openai.com/careers/search/
  - fragmede 18d ago
    To use the humans to generate training data for the AI to learn from.
yazaddaruvala 19d ago
You might also be going though purpose death which is an emotional concern related to thriving, but I think your bigger emotional concern is related to survival. This answer is the same as ever - race to financial freedom. Live under your means. Invest wisely. Survive till you hit your milestones. Meanwhile, I really don’t believe the narrative about fewer jobs. As long as you’re curious, as long as you continue learning, the new tools and focus on the parts of your current job that involve judgment you will continue putting food on your table as long as you are alive. Use any and every tool you have to save the people around you time, and the C level will continually fight to keep you. When AI gets good at something you are good at - great use the time (accelerated by using AI for self help) to find another thing you’re good at the AI isn’t yet. Make sure you have 3-4 things you’re good at at any given time so as AI gets good you have redundancy.

wffurr 20d ago

Top comment on this post taking "reply to the title" to the next level.

omnicognate 20d ago
Quite. And unfortunately they opted for a clever, punny title that implies the exact opposite of what the article says.

GPerson 20d ago

I’m just going to say this 100 times I guess. Terence Tao has had a very consistent narrative on AI in math for a very long time, at least since 2023. He’s always described it as a surprisingly good tool and has advocated that mathematicians adopt the technology without becoming totally reliant on it. He’s also always argued that mathematics is fundamentally about human understanding. There’s no change in his messaging recently on the basic narratives. It is not right to project one’s grief onto others and then characterize all their actions through this lens! (This post is attributed to other people and doesn’t sound like his voice by the way, which highlights the problem with doing so.) And it’s especially wrong to pose what looks like a therapy diagnosis on a stranger in public as a non-expert.

curt15 19d ago
> He’s also always argued that mathematics is fundamentally about human understanding. It's also worth pointing out he didn't come up with this viewpoint just to "cope" with the headlines. Thurston articulated this way back in the 90s (https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9404236 https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/9404236) and also more recently (https://mathoverflow.net/questions/43690/whats-a-mathematician-to-do https://mathoverflow.net/questions/43690/whats-a-mathematici...): > The product of mathematics is clarity and understanding. Not theorems, by themselves. Is there, for example any real reason that even such famous results as Fermat's Last Theorem, or the Poincaré conjecture, really matter? Their real importance is not in their specific statements, but their role in challenging our understanding, presenting challenges that led to mathematical developments that increased our understanding.

quickthrowman 20d ago

> I’d say Terrance has recently left the denial phase, … There’s a byline at the top of the article that lists the authors of this blog post, neither of which are Terry Tao. > [This is a guest post by Silvia De Toffoli and Eamon Duede. This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI. — T.]

mikhailfranco 20d ago

The blog post was not written by Terry Tao :)

eetde 19d ago

This goal post stuff is tiresome. The only thing it reveals is how poor humans are predicting and defining things.

bbor 19d ago

That is the definition of an existential crisis, btw. I like the neologism too, tho

casey2 19d ago

But this is mathematics, modern mathematics had it's purpose death decades if not centuries ago. People got into it over the last 60-100 years for autistic reasons, now that AI has got rid of those reasons you'd have to be even more autistic to entertain the idea. But plenty of people are, and more tech = more mental illness so it'll probably be a wash.

KolenCh 19d ago

[dead]

corimaith 13d ago

No. This isn't a problem for people who didn't define themselves by what they produce in the first place. The "otaku" of the old didn't have that problem, precisely because they were defined by their desires and ambitions, and how to realize them, not be dragged down into the drudgery of implementation.