Hacker News Reader

usefulness can only be determined after the fact.

People thought, back in the 17 century, that imaginary were useless (except as a trick for some calculations). Turns out the research into these numbers back then is amazingly useful today, 300 years later, in electronics and such.

Publicly funded maths research should continue, even if some taxpayers feel it's a waste of money.

Nobody determined the usefulness of the internal combustion engine or the aeroplane after the fact. They were goals specifically worked towards. For every useful discovery that comes from this hobbyist approach there are far more that aren’t, and those would have been discovered during a goal orientated research program.

However, with AI it actually may become so cheap that the scattergun random approach becomes more viable rather than less. It’s when human time and resources are scarce that you need to optimise. The hobbyist approach may therefore ironically continue, but without the hobbyists.

> Publicly funded maths research should continue, even if some taxpayers feel it's a waste of money.

Note, I think the debate is mainly over what research should be funded, not whether any research should be funded.

it's the same - what research getting funded should not be determined by the applied nature of the research.

In fact, the taxpayer should be funding fundamental research because it's so hard to justify profit from it - but that funding would benefit all in the long future.

So leaving the applied research that have commercial value be funded by private, commercial interests, would make more sense.

> usefulness can only be determined after the fact.

Thats great! So in other words it should be perfectly fine for AI to solve all of the supposedly useless math problems so that it might possibly be useful later. No need to worry about the mathematicians hobbies here.

> No need to worry about the mathematicians hobbies here.

of course not.

Hobbies can still be done even if AI gets it done more quickly. Just like today, where knives are made much faster/cheaper in presses and CNC machines, vs a blacksmith hammering. But still, there are hobby blacksmiths.

> look forward to science becoming automated so that we can have real progress instead of the current broken system

Do you really think a society with zero human mathematicians or scientists will outperform one with both human and AI ones?

Actually yes, I think that AI will end up in a place where additional human effort, even at the highest level of suggesting what directions to look in, will become a rounding error compared to what the AI will achieve by itself.

So as measured by utility, I absolutely believe we don’t need humans doing science into the future. I’m sure people will continue doing it, but not for utility, for enjoyment - as a hobby. Probably we’ll all end up as dedicated hobbyists.

>We have collectively wasted a huge amount of taxpayer money and human time, entire careers, on things not likely to ever matter to anyone.

How much..?

The whole point of public funding for science is that seemingly pointless research yields useful but hard to monetize discoveries. Otherwise VCs would be doing it.

The software equivalent of this is claiming that game development is laundering software as hobby. Absurd.

Haha. That’s almost verbatim what the guy said. Here, let me grab that for you:

> things that I do and that my colleagues do, this kind of like curiosity-driven, you know, applied math, computational physics type research has always been justified by, I would argue, intentionally blurring the line between what I would call, you know, science as product versus science as process

> science as product is very kind of clear-cut. It’s, you know, things like, you know, cure cancer, solve nuclear fusion, generate, you know, clean energy.

> And then there’s science as process, which is kind of the curiosity-driven stuff about, you know, like, “I want to understand protein folding,” or, “I want to understand, you know, turbulence,” or, “I want to understand quantum gravity,” or something. And broadly speaking, we have tended to justify the latter by kind of laundering it through the former

And the examples he gives are actually the more defensible ones, he talks about a friend of his working on some abstract algebra under the false guise of cryptography research later.

And it’s not just him saying it, this is simply true. He should be lauded for admitting it publicly, this is the only way any progress is made. At least, it used to be. Now it’ll be AI instead.