2 ms·
The real issue is that there is "research" and then there is research. Most publications are simple recapitulations of well known ideas but applied to somewhat
by carefree-bob 15d ago
The real issue is that there is "research" and then there is research. Most publications are simple recapitulations of well known ideas but applied to somewhat unique environments. Imagine if you are a carpenter, you are just using your existing tools to make more stuff, but fundamentally what you are doing is no different from what any other carpenter is doing. It's workmanlike production.
The truly valuable stuff is coming up with new ideas, that is, new techniques that allow for breakthroughs. That is rare, is done by only a handful of people in any decade, and is very, very hard. When you study a book on the history of math, you see the names of people that created brand new techniques which allowed them to solve problems no one else could solve.
But you still have that 99.9% that needs jobs, and they need to publish, but what they are doing can be mostly replaced by AI.
The specific situation with Navier-Stokes really highlights this. Mathematicians came up with the technique, but the AI managed to apply it faster than even the technique inventors. So it appears that AI is now good enough to be doing the workmanlike stuff, which is the bread and butter of a lot of mathematicians that are just trying to get their publications in so they are not fired.
I do think this creates real problems for the field and that some changes are necessary.
- stbede 15d agoExactly. This is what the letter should have focused on. The issue is not alignment, per se. If AI can do the workmanlike stuff at breakneck speeds, academia will decide between two options: 1) Keep the average mathematician employed doing redundant mathematics just to have capable humans around. Every now and then you get one of those mathematicians actually developing new ideas, but most departments will entirely be just for show. It's doable though. College sports is able to keep itself going along these lines (and I mean the track, softball, and polo type sports). 2) You get unemployed mathematicians who were still developing their abilities. And as a result you lose the institutions that generate the mathematicians that contribute new ideas. You get to keep the handful of exceptional mathematicians that are developing new ideas, and that's survivable if you happen to be a Fields medalist. None of this really has to do with the AI companies aligning themselves to giving credit and developing insights. If AI companies became aligned to that, then the AI's would be replacing the Fields medalists, too.
- carefree-bob 15d agoWe should just pay them to teach classes and not require them to do research at all. That's the part that needs to change.