points by caminmccluskey 2 days ago | 0 comments
It's still possible, and I suspect likely, that many more problems will require new creative advances. Creative advances that may have arisen in the regular course of attempting to solve these problems that were nevertheless amenable (often in a very alien brute-force way) to combination of existing techniques
[–] stouset 2 days ago
[–] senderista 2 days ago
We seem to still be a long way from an AI equivalent of Grothendieck (i.e., creative system-builder). Maybe AI is close to replacing a problem-solver like Erdos.
I’ve heard Grant Sanderson’s take. But I suspect math is going down a dark road where humans have little reason to pursue it any more. We’ve crossed a threshold where computers are regularly solving problems that have remained open for decades. Humans barely stand a chance today; ten years from now we’ll be irrelevant in terms of pushing the field forward.
AI might be around to produce new techniques for other AI. But will it be relevant for humans? Will humans even need to be part of the loop? Will the new techniques be presented in ways that are intended to be conveyed to humans? Will there be humans interested in or capable enough to use them? I have my doubts.