> And without mathematicians to ask the right questions
Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting?
> and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?
Here, I think I agree. At some level, there has to be a human in the process that must understand / interpret the results.
I gotta say, however, that I'm not certain about my agreement. I'm worried that I'm missing something where the human can be excised from the process entirely.
> Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting?
But why would they ask the right questions without prompting? The LLMs have no intrinsic goal to research math problems, it would just be very costly to run queries without a reason to run them... arguably a human in that loop would be a mathematician, but then we do need them after all.
> But why would they ask the right questions without prompting?
What if the models are good enough (maybe even now?) so that all you have to say is "come up with a list of interesting problems overlooked by humans in <insert math discipline>. Then work on those proofs."
I don't think that's so far fetched. Especially given the news today about NS.
I think we know enough about reinforcement learning to tell that it won’t be able to entirely replace human mathematicians. All of the techniques used by these AI firms are well-studied.
Here, I disagree. What makes you think the AI won't be able to ask the right questions without prompting?
> and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?
Here, I think I agree. At some level, there has to be a human in the process that must understand / interpret the results.
I gotta say, however, that I'm not certain about my agreement. I'm worried that I'm missing something where the human can be excised from the process entirely.