Comment by mna_
9 hours ago
Chess is kept afloat by chess players, not by billionaires. If all the billionaire backers stopped sponsoring tournaments, people like me would still play, still pay for chess club memberships, still pay entry fees for tournaments, and still buy chess books, and so on.
I think the parent comment meant professional, high-level chess. The kind people get played to play, not just do for a hobby. That's absolutely on life support.
I'm not sure what the equivalent would look like in the math field, but it probably involves a lot of mathematicians losing their jobs and the quality of human-produced math decreasing overall.
The quality of the math in general would be fine, since in this scenario cpus will keep producing it. The quality of cpu-cpu chess games is quite high, beyond human understanding in many cases.
Chess is a weird example because it doesn't really have any utility beyond itself. Even pure math sometimes ends up having use in the strangest places. Although if no one understands the frontier math (because no one is getting paid to), I'm not sure it even matters what the quality of the cpu math is?
It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound?
"Although if no one understands the frontier math (because no one is getting paid to), I'm not sure it even matters what the quality of the cpu math is?"
Presumably AI will be connect the dots to the applications. As the declaration says, this isn't just about math. Human understanding is losing economic value. You can understand stuff on your own time, I guess.
The standard justification for pure math to holders of purse-strings is something like "it might lead to a useful application down the road, like crypto, who knows". That looks pretty inefficient now. We have to entertain the possibility that AI can develop the math needed for any application we put to it. Eg if number theory didn't exist, we could have asked AI for a way to transit messages securely and it would maybe come up with fermats little theorem as part of its solution or maybe come up with an approach we can't conceive of right now seeing as most of us are constrained to available number theory. Like how in the last year when I give an LLM a programming project I see it doesnt even bother with of the many software libraries I and others have written and just codes up the calls it needs on the fly or finds some other ad hoc solution.
When there's a billion people playing something, money will never be an issue for those at the top. Even things like chess.com was able to sponsor a tournament with a million dollar prize pool.
Also I'd argue that chess's utility is ultimately the same as pure math, particularly in esoteric fields. These things are highly unlikely to ever lead to any sort of real world breakthrough or application. The main benefit is an outlet for human logic, creativity, and exploration - which significant self improvement possible along the journey for players.
Though I think even that's probably too socially utilitarian. I think ultimately the 'real' drive is the same in both fields - it's fun and personally rewarding.
I would argue people getting paid to play chess was a short lived phenomenon anyway if you put it in context. The transition there is less related to the introduction of chess engines and more related to the shift in the media landscape.
> It's a bit like a tree falling in a forest. If an LLM proves a theorem but no one understands it, did it make a sound?
But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs.
It's kind of surprising so many mathematicians act surprised by this given this was clearly where automated proof assistants would lead. I guess they assumed they'd always be the ones guiding them.
> But in future most proofs will be for consumption by other AI models in the pursuit of yet other proofs.
What is the purpose of that?
Its like art being produced for AI to consume. What is gained from that?
7 replies →
[dead]
Mathematics is more than establishing arbitrary facts (although some look like curiosities), it's also defining what interesting research directions are and establishing common language/notation. I think that will stay relevant?
In theory you can automate finding interesting research directions by identifying conjectures with many dependencies. And notation has never been mathematicians' forte, with them trying to cram the entirety of universe into single letters.
Why? How do you define interesting research directions? That used to be defined by testing the limits of human understanding i.e. some people can't figure something out. AI might have very different ideas about what is interesting and I am not sure what humans would get out of putting years into understanding AI proofs for what? What are we doing at that point? Like if you spend years understanding some AI proof of theorem 123456, why is that meaningful? I am actually asking why you think defining interesting research directions will stay relevant. In my opinion, people spend years acquiring knowledge so they can work on problems which is separate.
There's two points about this I am assuming 1) Mathematics actually has a significant subjectivity to it and is community oriented and not just climbing a never ending list of theorems that exists in the universe 2) A lot of mathematical research work is inside of a subfield and isn't directly motivated by applications. Sometimes it is but e.g. people don't work on obscure theorems about elliptic curves because of a dire need for that but more because the community found it interesting.
People become interested in things when they become invested in it personally, because they've contributed to it. So I don't think it will stay relevant...
[dead]
>but no one understands it, did it make a sound?
Does your "one" only contain humans or does it also contain other AI systems. AI math is not a single monolithic thing, but a distributed one. I see value in sharing proofs even among just AI.
Also, you learn to be a better chess player by... playing better players. The widespread availability of chess engines has made flawless opponents available to every player.
If your goals are understanding the game, self improvement, building thinking skills-- this is the best chess has ever been. It's only if your goal is to beat every opponent you can find that chess is in a bad place.
It's not that easy. Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least).
Even if you don't blunder anything, you'll still find yourself in a worse position without any clue as of what went wrong and why.
Whereas when playing humans, they can usually explain their approach and when they noticed errors in your play.
I mean, I'm not a great player but I've learned a lot from working through games with stockfish using a git repo and a small script that lets me rewind to different moves and try different approaches. It may not explain its moves but if you're thinking through what's happened you can usually debug your game anyway.
> Playing stockfish is like playing tennis against the wall (for untitled players at least).
It's the same for Magnus Carlsen. Even with Queen odds, Stockfish is literally unbeatable for the best players in the world. It's just too strong at evaluating all kinds of random tangent moves (and ensuing positional advantage) which no human player can possibly pay attention due to the time required.
Stockfish vs any human is like Carlsen vs other players by about 3-5 orders of magnitude[0]. It's that stark.
[0] A wild pun appears.
EDIT: To avoid having to respond to each responder, fair comments about Queen odds. Maybe I was thinking Rook odds? Also, I kinda lumped Stockfish in with all the other engines, but I realize there are other engines with different properties ofc.
3 replies →
I mean, this is the problem with analogies and trying to use them to prove things, right? People working through problems from an analysis book with their friend (or an LLM) is not the same as research mathematics. People playing in a chess club is not the same as what makes for a good chess tournament. Lumping everything together is just making this branch of the conversation less relevant.