Comment by atleastoptimal
16 days ago
It seems the trend for AI math is:
>Proofs which fewer and fewer people are able to understand
>Those who do understand, the rate at which models make discoveries exceed the amount of time those humans have in a day
>As a result, we will increasingly use other AI models to validate the proofs AI make for us
I don't see a future where this doesn't apply to everything. Let's say you're an evil CEO, you could ask an AI model to run for days cooking up every possible nefarious scheme to get out of a class-action lawsuit scott-free, to avoid taxes via complex financial engineering, etc. The plans will be far more complex than any human can understand. There simply aren't enough humans with the mental bandwidth to oppose you, so it's just machine vs machine, and if you have more money to pay for more compute, you win.
> It seems the trend for AI math is:
> > Proofs which fewer and fewer people are able to understand
This is the trend for proofs of famous old theorems in general, even pre-AI. Some particularly extreme examples are the proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem [0], the abc conjecture [1], the classification of finite simple groups [2], and the four colour theorem [3].
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiles's_proof_of_Fermat's_Last...
[1]: https://mathoverflow.net/questions/232087/have-there-been-an...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_of_finite_simpl...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem#Proof_by_co...
Tax law is not arbitrarily complicated, and unexpected edge cases are settled by human judges, not by mathematical proofs.
Yeah people forget that law is not mathematics.
At the end of the day judge either believes you or not and you are ducked
And if your defense is so complicated then that’s worse for… you