HN

Need help?
<- Back
Tao: Open math problems being non-renewably mined by AI

Tao: Open math problems being non-renewably mined by AI

_alternator_

Comments (169)

  • senshan
    From "Jokester" by Isaac Asimov 1956:"Early in the history of Multivac, it had become apparent that there was one big bottleneck: the questioning procedure. Multivac could answer the problems of humanity, all the problems, if -- if it were asked meaningful questions. But as knowledge accumulated at an ever-faster rate, it became ever more difficult to locate those meaningful questions."[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20150118004835/http://www.sffaud...
  • Alien1Being
    Tao's central point seems to be:"In short, the indiscriminate use of powerful solution-extraction tools can achieve the immediate short-term goal of solving problems at hand, but at the cost of sustaining the ecosystem for the next wave of progress, or in understanding the progress already obtained. " I am no mathematician, may have misunderstood his point and would be delighted to receive any corrections.
  • dvt
    I'm with @nilesh on this one, and not exactly sure how merely the existence of a solution precludes the advancement of human knowledge. If a problem is "solved" (say, symbolically verified) without any insights gained, it doesn't seem very interesting to the profession.Navier-Stokes is a bit different (because there's a prize attached, so "scooping" matters), but almost all interesting problems don't have any prizes attached.
  • thymine_dimer
    Doesn't this just suggest that the next frontier for powerful AI models is to ask challenging questions, not simply solve them?Terry even says this: "In fact, it is now the identification of a promising problem which is the scarce and precious resource."The creativity and insight needed to ask a question that Terry gets excited about is the next step. Perhaps OpenAI should create a set of challenging questions and offer a prize to solve them.
  • jfengel
    I didn't realize that open math problems were a finite resource.I recall a story about some famous mathematician (Gauss?) dismissing interest in Fermat's Last Theorem claiming that he could crank out problems of equivalent interest.Clearly Tao knows a hell of a lot more than I do about this, but I'm surprised that math that close to completion.
  • silver92bullet
    I think this highlights one of the fundamental differences between humans and our current AI systems. They can still only try to solve problems in the given well defined parameters they are given (with some exceptions). The human is able in the effort to solve problems to intuit where there may be new interesting problems adjacent to the current problem.
  • meken
    I don’t see why it makes a meaningful difference if a human solves a math problem versus AI - it seems like the same amount of understanding will come out in the end. Either the understanding will come from humans arriving at the proof in the former case, or the understanding will come from humans understanding the proof that the AI came up with in the latter.
  • david-gpu
    Aren't we in a similar position to what chess went through in the 2000s when Deep Fritz came out, and a desktop PC was able to defeat a reigning World Chess Champion? Did chess players just give up and stop playing? No, they didn't. They used these new chess engines to become better players. Computer programmers and mathematicians will probably go through something analogous.Presumably it is only a matter of time until these frontier models are used to create new interesting conjectures. I don't get Tao's line of reasoning.
  • olalonde
    Can't mathematicians still gain novel insights by reverse-engineering AI-generated proofs? Just like chess players learn new concepts by studying what engines play.
  • _alternator_
    This series of posts by Terry Tao is a direct response to the Navier-Stokes results (multiple results!) from the last 24 hours. The question is what is left after the levelling of mathematics, in all its senses, occurs? How can you protect a field that's under this much pressure in the next 6 months?> [I]t is now the identification of a promising problem which is the scarce and precious resource. We have now seen that even the rumor of someone working on a problem can trigger a massive amount of AI-powered effort to flatten it before the original research project has time to reach its full potential.
  • colinhb
    Seems like in current cultural and economic context, short term extraction is what we’re going to do> In short, the indiscriminate use of powerful solution-extraction tools can achieve the immediate short-term goal of solving problems at hand, but at the cost of sustaining the ecosystem for the next wave of progress, or in understanding the progress already obtained.
  • jdoliner
    My model of mathematical intelligence for a little while now has been 3 levels:1. I give you a proof, you tell me if it's correct2. I give you a theorem, you give me a correct proof3. I give you nothing, you give me a theorem1. is largely solved by modern LLMs and they took a big step toward 2. today with the Navier-Stokes proof. But they're definitely not there yet. It's unclear what progress is being made toward 3. for the time being that remains the realm of humans.
  • ppsreejith
    @Practal's comment is interesting:> Pure mathematics is dead. Long live mathematics. I think all of interesting mathematics is applied mathematics in the end. Powerful AI means that the level at which we can do applied mathematics will be so much higher, though, and many more people will be able to be "mathematicians". The importance of pure mathematics is often argued for by citing examples of important applications that used pure mathematics invented a long time before the application became apparent. We can reverse this argument: by properly developing the mathematics our applications need, we surely will obtain all of interesting pure mathematics.Perhaps the pace of applied mathematics would rise sharply, given cheap intelligence. And this* may end up being the forefront driving progress in mathematics.*Or maybe a split between the human domain and the practical real world. Where the human domain might end up with a variation of a "No machine contributions" policy. Sorta like the recent gcc policy.
  • jujube3
    We're running out of math. Maybe the president needs to establish a Strategic Math Reserve.
  • fwlr
    Open math problems, yes; also open source code, art, literature, and everything else as well. AI is a machine for turning commons into tragedies.
  • pvillano
    The way to tame a profit-maximizer is to make the most profitable choice the one that creates the most societal good.I would like to see the Clay Institute give zero recognition for formalizations without human-readable proofs. That would incentivize OpenAI to scram or create something that's actually useful.
  • sno6
    "In a world where the cost of answers is dropping to zero, the value of the question becomes everything"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcolM6W5Odc
  • sxzygz
    Oh man am I totally going to determine the 10^10^10th digit of π and cement my name in the annals of history.
  • nadermx
    What is this man talking about. You can speak physics into existance now, yet it still has to be proven with math. Until we are walking through worm holes and driving around in spaceships that travel in a warp drive could he even begin to say there is non-renewable. But even then..
  • qarl
    AIs are putting humans out of work.Yes. We already knew this. Are we actually surprised it's happening?I guess we are.
  • arjie
    Well, we name conjectures after the conjecturer not the (dis)prover so there is some incentive to be the guy who comes up with a hard problems. It is curious that we haven’t had something like this improve OR etc. problems. Perhaps not glorious enough.
  • program_whiz
    Timing is everything https://nonlineartransform.substack.com/p/ai-swarms-timing-i...Article arguing math is the next "human calculator".
  • turtleyacht
    If proofs are tropes, explanations are stories. There won't be an end to stories.
  • LunicLynx
    Why not let AI proof or disproof this Tao - PI - Riemann zeta hypothesis
  • gpm
    See also his previous thread from before the result was published (and before he knew it was coming [1]) on how a to this problem seemed increasingly likely to be solved by AI in a way that caused us to miss the insights that would traditionally be associated with solving it: https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117207849921390904[1] https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117219101339291693
  • gowld
    There seems to be a sense wher mathematicians are gamifying math, but are frustrated that AI labs are better at gamifying math.If an AI solves a problem in an unenlightening way, then there's no reason for mathematicians to stop studying it. Pythagoream Theorem has hundreds of different proofs!If an AI solves a problem in an enlightening way, mathematicians should study it and propose extensions.
  • kurtis_reed
    Plenty of new open problems will come from applications, and applications are what actually matters. Pure mathematicians are wrapped up in math for the sake of math which is a fun academic game but not something the rest of us should care about.
  • esafak
    It's the same pipeline problem coders have been talking about; once AI does all the work, how are people going to get the experience necessary to take part productively?
  • jijji
    The lack of reasoning traces in frontier model output is hurting science and progress... thats my take away from reading that, and why open source models are so critical and so needed, because they actually do expose the chain-of-thought reasoning traces recently missing from the frontier models (openAI, anthropic, etc). By encrypting and purposely hiding this important information from public inspection, it makes for a world where people lack the true understanding of how a problem gets solved.
  • dakolli
    This is just the age of slop mathematics, if it doesnt lead to our lives neing improved none of this matters. Math peeps are being nerd sniped by AI in the same way SWEs (the worst ones) got sniped by claude code. Building solutions to problems that dont matter for the sake of doing it just because you can.You'll ultimately waste a ton of time and get lapped by people doing real world work that actually improves the lives of regular people.
  • axionbraid
    [flagged]
  • animanoir
    [dead]