← Back to context

Comment by lacker

10 hours ago

I have seen two worries recently:

1. People will publish so much frontier mathematics, humans won't be able to understand it all

2. Frontier mathematics will all be kept secret

Fortunately, these seem like they can't both happen at once.

There are many conjectures that we know are almost surely true, but we don't know why, and explaining why is the main purpose of the mathematician when publishing a proof.

The fact that we don't know why is a clue pointing at some area of math that we haven't discovered yet. The hope is always that it will uncover some hidden fertile valley that will lead to lots of new discoveries. But the proof of the conjecture itself, without understanding, is really not that valuable.

My point is that even if AI discovers many new truths, there's still plenty to do for the mathematical community, in dissecting it and building useful abstractions to understand it, abstractions that can be leveraged for further exploration and uncovering new questions.

  • This seems right as long as the AI output is legible enough to reverse-engineer

> 1. People will publish so much frontier mathematics, humans won't be able to understand it all

That already happened before AI.

> 2. Frontier mathematics will all be kept secret

Gauss kept lots of frontier mathematics in his drawer. In the 20th centuries government spy agencies developed public key cryptography long before that was known to the public. To give just two examples.

It's not the end of the world.

And what do you care, if someone keeps frontier mathematics a secret, if you can ask DeepSeek version 10 in 2030 to prove the Riemann hypothesis for you?

I think the worry is:

1. People will publish AI generated frontier math making it difficult to identify frontier mathematicians. 2. Trained frontier mathematicians will become scarce

Seems perfectly possible to get the worst of both worlds: more mathematics than anyone can read, and less access to the mathematics people actually care about.

That's also what the gerrymandering discourse is like. Gerrymandering is a threat to civilization because it means political parties will minimize their electoral margins, and because it means politicians will maximize their electoral margins.

  • Like yeah, result is that one group politicians are minimized and others maximized.

    Which makes total sense unlike the "too much frontier math" nonsense.