Post #2920370

3. I think the frustration that 'Anti-AI' people, such as myself, have felt has been largely misunderstood (I think in many cases, even by 'Anti-AI' people themselves). The point is that the resolution of the 'crisis' mathematicians face in the future depends heavily on whether or not there are aspects of mathematical reasoning that are not computational. Whether there are or aren't is currently unclear. I can't speak for others, but the frustration that I feel is that there has not been any serious discussion of this among prominent figures. If I was a prominent figure, I would lead this discussion myself, but I am unfortunately not a prominent figure and so there is not much I can do. The bottom line for all of this is that aversion to AI may have been read as decrying AI as useless, but this is not the point: the point is that when I introspect about how I think about mathematics, it seems both subjectively and formally to be not a computational process at its core, and so all of the discussion around it based on the concept that AI will keep getting better feels entirely moot. AI may keep getting better, but if it only does so with an asymptote at the top that it can't get past, and the 'core' of pure mathematics lives above this asymptote, then there isn't really a problem except in the short term. And all AI does is force others to consider whether or not pure mathematics is computational. If pure mathematics is not computational, it doesn't really 'help' us do pure mathematics, because the 'pure' part is not computational. (12/n)