unknownian

I could address your situation in several ways and it would be a long discussion that a quick soundbite wouldn’t really satisfy. But at the very least, your argument is one of the arguments I would use to question the privatization of pure math by LLM companies. Pure math has little value to society so AI companies should consider not getting involved when they aren’t really making life better for anyone and are possibly harming young academics.

But to give a brief answer to your question directly: In my view, and I think many if they really thought about it, the point of life is to overcome. If there is an AI that spits out the answer to questions that don’t directly impact human wellbeing instead of letting humans explore the answer at our own pace, we should question whether that AI is worth keeping around or at least relying on too much.

Obviously the question is more nuanced when it comes to math, because even pure math can have applications to understanding reality and improving human wellbeing.

So the question then becomes what do we do with the AI when it can both improve our wellbeing and remove meaning from our lives? Is a life without struggle worth a life without meaning? Personally I don’t think so, so I think we have to optimize all of the benefits of AI while essentially taking a harsh stance against all the harms. Currently the main harm is to education, and that’s why I think we should question and probably even disallow its use by students still working to demonstrate their skills.

If you were a math grad student, would you rather your advisor be telling you to LLM maxx your ideas or working with you and giving you ideas on your thesis personally? I know my answer.

“We should give the password for our university laptops running LaTeX to the robots and go sit at home.”

It also ignores the fact that among fashion enthusiasts (hardcore consumers NOT producers) handmade and artisanal clothing is generally preferred.

The problem is this: “Astra write me a masters thesis applying new techniques programming language theory to Rust” is not using a tool, it’s hiring someone to do the work and thinking for you.

I have difficulty figuring out how to solve this issue.

Some of these academics are still alive. Perhaps it was due to propaganda as you were saying, but I really believe that they meant it.

The main problem is that without safeguards it becomes impossible to adjudicate new work in math or CS, meaning grad students who care about originality in work will have little sense of accomplishment if the AI gives them all the answers and will decide to study something else. Not to mention that AI users in math/CS are often ignoring standards in publishing, including issues with plagiarism and scooping of work. These are pretty serious problems that will end up causing a lot of people to move to other subjects.

If you read any classic mathematics or computer science textbook, you get the sense that the author wants to impart the idea that this subject leads to an interesting and meaningful life. There are many famous quotes about being the architect or designer of an idea rather than just a technician holding a power tool following instructions someone else wrote. Now all of those adages have become effectively meaningless because so many involved in these careers are cool with the industry dying for some vague notion of progress due to a machine god. It’s a pathetic state of affairs that the elders aren’t speaking out more to protect the next generation of human thinking.

I say this as someone who uses LLMs in the physical sciences (one of the only areas where I would say it is ethical to use them).

As someone who cares a lot about AI/LLMs making breakthroughs in certain areas like medicine due to my own history with health problems, if it means all the stimulating experiences of life become meaningless, sometimes I wonder if it will be worth it in the end. Which is why I dread the future where their negative externalities aren’t reigned in.

You think a top 2 greatest mathematician alive is out of touch?

It’s more like avoiding looking at the answer key while doing homework to be able to pass an exam and to understand the material better, especially for the grad students who haven’t gotten their PhDs yet. Personally I think responsible AI use is possible (not all AHM members completely avoid AI, but it’s notable that some heavy hitters do), but it’s best not to use a closed model trying to replace you. Use an open model that won’t train on your data.

How do you think a PhD committee should referee a dissertation where all the ideas came from AI?

I don’t have a problem with using AI in the applied sciences once a researcher has proven their skills. I do have a problem with it damaging education, the pure math pipeline, and art.

There are an infinite number of problems that require a unique proof (you can prove this btw). Yes maybe you need to work harder to find a more obscure problem now but why give up the fight already? I believe that students should have the right to intellectually stimulating education. If you really need to use AI, go for something that isn’t trying to put you out of business or destroy your right to a decent education, like a local open weights LLM.