Hacker News Reader

Comment by diamondage | Hacker News Reader

This misses the raw advantage of a good proof. It makes conceptualization simpler. In some ways math is like a hash list of of theorems. This list makes it simpler to prove other calculations, and will always be useful, to both humans and AI models. I can see two new directions 1 - the creation of specialist theorem models; that can answer questions efficiently about one topic and 2 - we probably need to incentivize and codify ownership of theorems; charging a proportion of the compute saved by using them. Ultimately enabling mathematicians to be paid our true market value!

View on HN

Oh boy, please not 2. What if this was a thing already and, since neither Newton nor Liebnitz had kids, we all had to pay some investors who bought the rights to calculus every time we took a derivative.

You know patents only last 20 years right?

As long as somebody with big $ decides: "let's make it 40!"

Aaaaasaand now Disney owns the rights to room temperature superconductivity.

> It makes conceptualization simpler

I wonder if it makes conceptualization simpler for models too, given that they're trained already on human-speak. And I'm also curious as to whether humans currently have an innate advantage into simplifying and contextualizing proofs, or will the machines get good at that as well?

My point is that they will, and that is always going to be useful. Bundles of simplified knowledge (in whatever form) that make research simpler will be useful to share whether humans can understand them or not...

Considering how essential math and science is for the prosperity of mankind (not even speaking about the cultural value) the question of how to reward people working and contributing in these fields effectively and appropriately is of extreme importance. (And I think the current decline in our societies is to no small degree caused also by our utter failure to address that issue.)

It is also fascinating, because I don't think there is any solution within our existing system, at least not any I know of. Theorem ownership is not a good solution (and neither are patents in general). Probably the most achievable (or rather the least unachievable) solution is a kind of communist utopia, where people can dedicate their time to a pursuit of any endeavor they see fit, as resources for a decent life are abundant and excessive power capture impossible. (The other option, somewhat dystopian, and which would not require humanity to change too much in its current mode of conduct, would be a totalitarian or caste-like capture of society by the scientific community.)

Incidentally, if AI proves as powerful as some expect it to become, it could bring about another solution of that issue by making all human science and mathematics obsolete, pushing its true market value to zero.

(With apologies for rambling.)

Almost every country in the world has a patent system for a reason...and they are pretty essential for big pharma to function. Granted there should be better calibration of duration - particularly in software, but rewarding first movers is wise in many market conditions. My point regarding "math as a hash list of theorems" is that Theorems will never lose their value, regardless of how powerful AI becomes; they represent compressed knowledge, and as such it will be more efficient for a more advanced AI to query known theorems than reconstruct each one from scratch - in that gap lies a marginal compute saving; an api service or tool call that someone might charge for. Even AI can benefit from specialists...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com