Post #2920116

2026-05-28 09:15 UTC

because there’s no economic incentive to hire them to do that kind of work. isn’t that the old “basic science is boring and unsexy” issue though? There are economic incentives, but not in a short term-big-bux sort of way, so capitalism can’t be trusted with it. To conjure up a recent example, something like “The number of curves of genus two with elliptic differentials”, published back in 1997, probably had limited commercial value at the time, but 20 years later completely sunk a promising post-quantum cryptography algorithm (“An eﬃcient key recovery attack on SIDH”) which might have had some non-trivial commercial implications if SIKE had got through the key exchange algorithm competition. Anyway, the Erdős problems are good candidates for llm work because they have been specified in a careful and formal way, which requires a reasonably competent mathematician to do. That then opens up mathematics to the same deskilling problem that other sectors afflicted with llms have, and because capitalism is shortsighted and stupid we don’t know what the future economic impact of that will be, right?

Replies (2)

@gerikson@awful.systems 2026-05-28 10:01

yeah I was aware of the value of pure math (specifically the discrete stuff for crypto) when I wrote it my point is the Scott-A is massively overvaluing the societal worth of pure mathematicians. Assuming (I know, big ask) that AI can succesfully automate that field, humanity is not worse off with regards to outcomes. Humanity remains relevant. It’s a weird moving of goalposts, not often commented upon, that GenAI is succesful mostly in replacing (in the Ersatz sense) stuff that’s not really foundational to human society. We don’t have robot cars, nor are we actually close to getting them, which would actually transform society in a massive way. Instead we have robot copywriters and bespoke porn creators. but for people like Scott-A, whose entire selfworth is being “smarter” than anyone else (not withstanding that he would be eaten alive in the post-apocalypse), being replaced by a robot is not just about losing your livelyhood but your self-worth as a human as well

Open ##2920832
@YourNetworkIsHaunted@awful.systems 2026-05-29 01:15

I think the challenge is that the value of results of any kind of basic research are so wildly variable that normal rational economic thinking stops working. In Nassim Taleb terms you’re actively seeking black swans in a world where everyone knows all swans are white. Sometimes you venture into the depths of the rainforest and come back with a revolutionary new medicine, but most of the time you’re gonna have a few cool pictures of new bugs or something - not without value in the real sense, but hard to capitalize and transform into profit. Even if you end up discovering/creating an entirely new framework for understanding life itself that revolutionizes everything from agriculture to medicine to politics in the following century, that doesn’t necessarily work in the specific context of economic rationality - who remembers the name of the guy(s?) who funded the Beagle? And sometimes, as you referenced, the cool bug picture doesn’t have an obvious or immediate return but ends up being the important piece of data in a different context decades down the line. This is a field of human endeavor where the economic best-case scenario is probably Bell Labs. And despite having an absurd number of patents and prizes they still couldn’t survive within being largely a vanity project for the original Telco monopoly. The ludicrous returns that came from repeatedly revolutionizing electronics and computing couldnt justify their position on a quarterly balance sheet.

Open ##2935273