the math community needs to adopt a version of the ethical standards of experimental science. If you are using AI agents, you can't just give a proof (formalized or not), but need to also provide a detailed explanation of how these agents were used to get the result.
I kind of suspect that actually they'll also be like quite good at doing that and probably just like better than most humans are at like doing the explanation half and distilling half and that's actually not what's left for the mathematicians is like digesting and and explaining what was going on.
It becomes insufferable like as a mathematician because you you would basically be like I'm every single time I see one of these I kind of don't know if it's worth my time even if 99 out of 100 of them are right.
I think the way that you'd measure conjecture generating ability is going to be more subjective on like that tone shift where um it'll be mathematicians saying they're not just using it to like solve their problems, but as they step back and decide what their research field should even be that a conversation with such and such model like was genuinely helpful for that.
So my role and arguably that of like other mathematicians might actually just shift subtly into that curation direction of what ideas are are worth displaying.
Know where the money is coming from. Know where you plug into that. And like if you're just asking those questions, you're actually already like steps ahead of all of the other like fledgling perspective mathematicians.
I expect AI to increase productivity of top mathematicians much more than that of top writers, because formalization is a kind of translation task, it doesn't require much judgement, and as long as it compiles noone needs to read the result.
Um I think with within a decade, a lot of things that mathematicians currently do um we we spend a lot of the bulk of our time doing and a lot of stuff we put in our papers today can be done by AI. Um but we will find that that actually wasn't the most important part of what we do.
I can say without a doubt that Superhuman is the best tool I’ve ever used to work through email quickly. There’s no single reason. The keyboard shortcuts are lightning fast. The composition tools avoid friction. Its auto-sorting is excellent. I’m just scratching the surface of the full feature set. But Superhuman comes with a significant cost at $30 a month.
I think the platform that Lean and other software tools, so GitHub and things like that will allow experimental mathematics to scale up to a much greater degree than we can do now.
Very rarely do you transform into a simpler problem. So if they can pick up a sense of smell, then they could maybe start competing with a human level of mathematicians.
If something holds 99.99% of the time, that's good enough for most things. But mathematicians are one of the few people who really care about whether really 100% of all situations are covered by it.
A korrent is a belief a person has stated in their own words: one
sentence stating the claim, backed by a quote and a source, kept at
korrents.com.
Under a name here, the quoted block is what they actually said.
The korrent beneath it is the claim those words support, in
korrents' wording — tap it to see the record, its source, and who
else holds it.
Nobody here wrote their own korrents. They are compiled from public
statements, and a person can change their mind, which is recorded too.
About the English under a post
Some people here publish in a language other than English. Where they
do, this site shows a machine translation beneath the post, in
this typeface — the site's own, not theirs.
The post itself is never changed, moved or hidden: what is set in the
serif above is exactly what the person published, and it is what to
quote them on. A translation can be wrong in ways that matter,
especially about tone.
Only the post's own words are translated. A quoted post, a linked
article and a belief on korrents.com
are left in their original language.