Comment by jacquesm
4 days ago
That works, as long as the math is not beyond the mathematicians. Besides that, since you make a pull request analogy: not all pull requests survive review, but generating them like this is cheap. Mathematicians are unlikely to submit pull requests that will be refused because they have a stake in the game: if they do so too often then their papers will no longer be reviewed as eagerly as when they were not submitting bs. The AI peddlers have no such limitations and will happily flood the receivers. As a result actual mathematicians papers run the risk of no longer being given enough consideration because there is this bottleneck you identified. So what will happen instead is exactly the same as what is happening in the world of code: they will engage AI to help with the reviewing. Before long the foundation of math will no longer be understandable by humans. This would be a loss imo.
Reading your comment, I’m curious if AI models will eventually “fork” mathematics. (Sorry for beating the same cranky analogy)
Like, not expecting human experts to review and merge their results, but developing math branches on their own. I guess it’s at least doable for applied math. For example, if AI agents find a fast method of prime factorization, they can demonstrate it by cracking RSA encryption. No human review required.
I’m less sure how it plays out for pure math, though. My intuition is fairly limited here.
It could easily happen. Just as I think it will happen that AIs will develop a language that we can not understand.