Isn't it terrifying that AI can become smarter than any Mathematician?

  • I
  • Thread starter Gjmdp
  • Start date
  • #26
jaketodd
Gold Member
364
4
Then we have to work less and less for the same living standard. Or work on higher living standards.

Go back 300 years and ~3/4 of the population were farmers. If machines take over these jobs, how can our life possibly get better? Today 1-2% of the population are farmers, and see how the world changed.

If no one has money to buy the new machines, then good luck. I think it may be in the implementation of the machines. If replicators on Star Trek are ubiquitous and cheap, then I can see that being an incredibly good thing. But if it's just the rich with the technology, not so good. Seen Elysium?

 
  • #27
35,646
12,213
If no one has money to buy the new machines, then good luck.
If literally no one has then the machines don't exist. If only some people have: That's a question of income equality, and I don't think we should start with politics here. This is a thread about math AIs.
 
  • #28
jaketodd
Gold Member
364
4
If literally no one has then the machines don't exist. If only some people have: That's a question of income equality, and I don't think we should start with politics here. This is a thread about math AIs.
I'm just exploring where this topic leads.
 
  • #29
trees and plants
I think that math, physics, sciences generally should be a human activity.Machines should be built to satisfy a man's needs like the fridge that preserves foods, electric kitchen that makes the food and makes it warm, a computer that makes people read with it, a bicycle to transport yourself faster from a place to another.What kind of need would AI satisfy if it replaced mathematicians' or physicists' work?Just to get quicker results?Then they would get AI for most of the other works and just push buttons on the machine and it will do the rest of the work?In my opinion the basic human needs have already been satisfied as far as making machines is concerned.Perhaps an alternative energy source, machines and technology for medicine and for specific purposes that people need very much would be suitable for advancing technology. At least as a hobby mathematics, physics and the rest of the sciences will remain for humans if AI does this.AI should not do this I think.Food that is provided today through factories and super markets is easier and more accessible to us.Education is accessible also from a young age. We have internet and bookstores to have access to information and read books.Medicine helps when someone has an illness.Also, people have opportunities to have professions today and live lives easier than in the past.Many countries do not have military wars.In relation to the past things have advanced.
 
  • #30
35,646
12,213
What kind of need would AI satisfy if it replaced mathematicians' or physicists' work?Just to get quicker results?
What kind of need would a bike satisfy? Just to get quicker from A to B?
Yes!

Quicker results means more results per time. An AI-assisted mathematician or physicist can do more research as they can delegate more and more tasks to a computer.
Then they would get AI for most of the other works and just push buttons on the machine and it will do the rest of the work?
Maybe in the future. What's wrong with that? If you want to add two large numbers you just push buttons on the machine and it will do the rest of the work. Same thing. Just the range of tasks increases.
AI should not do this I think.
Following your arguments you should reject basically every technology.
 
  • #31
jaketodd
Gold Member
364
4
But what about when the technology decides it can do pretty much anything better, and it can? Hal says "I could see your lips moving, Dave." Is humanity destined to become obsolete? Replaced with things that can think but uncertainty if they feel?
 
  • #32
367
34
But what about when the technology decides it can do pretty much anything better, and it can? Hal says "I could see your lips moving, Dave." Is humanity destined to become obsolete? Replaced with things that can think but uncertainty if they feel?
Sci-fi almost never gets the future right. Not so much obsolete as transformed I'd guess.
 
  • #33
jaketodd
Gold Member
364
4
Sci-fi almost never gets the future right. Not so much obsolete as transformed I'd guess.
Sci-fi is a great thing though. If you're talking about cybernetics, ya I remember writing a speech on how humans will be augmented with computers. Computer-brain interfaces. Ever heard of Alcor? The idea is to preserve the person until technology can bring them back to life and complement them.
 
  • #34
Demystifier
Science Advisor
Insights Author
Gold Member
12,208
4,553
Can AI be trained to prove only interesting theorems? If yes, can it be trained to explain us why they are interesting? As a specific example, I have in mind the Godel incompleteness theorems.
 
  • #35
367
34
Sci-fi is a great thing though. If you're talking about cybernetics, ya I remember writing a speech on how humans will be augmented with computers. Computer-brain interfaces. Ever heard of Alcor? The idea is to preserve the person until technology can bring them back to life and complement them.
I agree, and have written my fair share. I see AIs as our progeny. If you view evolution as "the rise of consciousness" (De Chardin) it makes sense. We humans are still pretty amazing and complex machines. Some aspects ought to endure.
 
  • #36
507
78
Can AI be trained to prove only interesting theorems? If yes, can it be trained to explain us why they are interesting? As a specific example, I have in mind the Godel incompleteness theorems.
Well, for one, many/most of the theorems of (ordinary) computation theory [say in literature etc.] should, in principle, be provable in sufficiently powerful axiomatic systems.

I suspect that if one tries to look for results of negative nature (no program can do this etc.) then probably this can serve as the most basic "filter" as a starting point (for results similar to what you mentioned).

===========================

Of course the question of "interesting" in general is well much more broad than this. As with most other questions of this type [including the one in OP], one can take two different viewpoints (mechanical/aesthetic or theoretical/practical distinction depending on question).

Here we have:
(i) purely mechanical [mechanical isn't the best word here, but I don't know of an alternative] viewpoint
(ii) aesthetic viewpoint on this.

(i) If we take a mechanical viewpoint we can say that nothing is really interesting or non-interesting. It is just that based on several factors (our lifespans, information processing speed, physical limitations on movements etc.) we only take those statements to be interesting which feel "short"/"elegant" enough to us.

(ii) The aesthetic viewpoint would not accept (i).
 
  • #37
BWV
1,016
1,053
Rumor is most of the mentors and science advisors here are bots, part of some secret program at Google
 
  • Haha
Likes Demystifier
  • #38
jaketodd
Gold Member
364
4
Here we have:
(i) purely mechanical [mechanical isn't the best word here, but I don't know of an alternative] viewpoint
(ii) aesthetic viewpoint on this.

(i) If we take a mechanical viewpoint we can say that nothing is really interesting or non-interesting. It is just that based on several factors (our lifespans, information processing speed, physical limitations on movements etc.) we only take those statements to be interesting which feel "short"/"elegant" enough to us.

(ii) The aesthetic viewpoint would not accept (i).
Before letting machines take over too much, it's important to realize that our knowledge and understanding and feelings are not completely understood. So a computer "thinking" may not be thinking as we think. I firmly believe that we are a lot more than our incomplete understanding of ourselves and the world. So just because computers can be made to think and make decisions, doesn't mean they are anywhere near what you and I are.
 
  • #39
jaketodd
Gold Member
364
4
Rumor is most of the mentors and science advisors here are bots, part of some secret program at Google
Do you have a link? Thanks
 
  • #40
in actual history, when computers enter a new field, they have always helped people do their existing jobs. Actually replacing people is rare, as far as I can see. At worst, I suspect mathematicians will be enabled to spend more time asking challenging questions and combining new answers with existing mathematics to ask even more new questions. That doesn't sound so bad to me.
 
  • #41
35,646
12,213
Do you have a link? Thanks
My algorithms are 99.7% confident that the following is a link, and 72.3% confident that the linked post is related to the topic:

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/most-likes-page.912736/page-9#post-6151556

It's somewhat of a running gag in many internet forums.
in actual history, when computers enter a new field, they have always helped people do their existing jobs. Actually replacing people is rare, as far as I can see.
People no longer route phone calls by hand. All the big mail sorting in first world countries is done by machines today (well, most of the time at least...). "Type this properly with the typewriter" jobs are largely gone and many reasons to write, send and deliver physical mail disappeared due to computers. Some subways are driven by a computer - no train conductor jobs in them. In the near future the demand for truck and taxi drivers will go down notably and that's a big employment sector. At the same time many new jobs appeared that didn't exist without computers, of course.
 

Related Threads on Isn't it terrifying that AI can become smarter than any Mathematician?

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
14K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
12K
Replies
6
Views
17K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
44
Views
5K
Top