So, it's like the story, "We'll see."
There has been a shocking but not altogether surprising development, and all reactions are valid.
Those are activities where repeating the same experience yourself is still enjoyable, kind of like you might eat today even though you already ate yesterday.
Finding mathematical proofs is probably more like seeing the ending to a mystery novel. Once the ending has been spoiled for you, it's really hard for you to enjoy it the same way, and it might be more fun to move on to a different mystery.
> People still play chess and go and StarCraft
Because most people still find them enjoyable. You can't say those are less enjoyable than math. There is no universal scale for enjoyment.
> kind of like you might eat today even though you already ate yesterday
You'd die if you stop eating after yesterday's meals. That's survival.
lots of people enjoy knowing the end of the story as they start a book, and it does not prevent them from enjoying the book in the slightest.
Something that always comes as a great surprise to those who don't.
So math should switch to a Columbo methodology?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouCVJIpSmEE
(This isn't to say I disagree with you.)
There is this idea of advancing human knowledge and adding to the record of what people know in mathematical research that breaks the analogy down, somewhat. But most people aren't Perelman. They would happily take the million dollar prize. And it is out of the question to do anything other than put your name on the published paper.
But realizing that the primary driver was never actually proving the conjectures, nor understanding the proofs, sheds light into the issue. Many are not satisfied with the prospect of curating and preserving an ever growing collection of discoveries; what they wanted is being the discoverers themselves.
Which to me is mind boggling, because that is not what they have been saying aloud all along. Maybe it's my autism speaking, but I really thought they cared about the resulting knowledge rather than being recognized by their peers. How naïve of me to think that they were above that.
Meanwhile, people who simply enjoy having a tool that facilitates solving problems, because having a solution is their true goal rather than an excuse to obtain recognition or validation, are excited to use this new wonder.
As for the personal swipe: please do better.
I think what people actually want when they say this is to be the hero. They want the admiration. Which is fine, but at least he honest.
I bet lots of them, who are in it for the love of the game, are truly excited by what is going on.
The noise from AHM and the like can be seen as a drive to intimidate these people into silence.
Poor analogy. Because math is one of those job-hobby type hybrids where the job may be enjoyable but you still need the academic infrastructure to do it on a modern level, both because you need funding and you need others to motivate you to keep to a certain standard.
Job-hobby hybrids like this are not the same as running and Starcraft where you can do it by yourself and still reap a lot of benefit from it in the same way. Hobbyists might still do math but if it were just up to the hobbyists, we wouldn't have the level of discovery we have today.
but very few get paid to do that
At least starving artists are safe!
Though its funding does move with the number of major projects academia is tasked with that rely on mathematics to advance, it's a fundamental knowledge area that has no operational requirements to exist.
Mathematics can be enjoyed recreationally as a puzzle like any other, but it isn’t just an arbitrary puzzle. It’s a science where one discovers truth and seeks an understanding of, and dreams up, new phenomena. It’s not chess, or go, or StarCraft. There’s no fixed rule set and the goal isn’t to ‘win’ or beat your opponents.
Let’s stop repeating this nonsense as if it’s a profound observation.
AI isn't going to stop hobbyists doing anything; no one ever suggested so. We're not talking about hobbyists.