self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__=self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__||[];self.__VINEXT_RSC_CHUNKS__.push("2:I[\"aadde9aaef29\",[],\"default\",1]\n3:I[\"6e873226e03b\",[],\"Children\",1]\n5:I[\"bc2946a341c8\",[],\"LayoutSegmentProvider\",1]\n6:I[\"6e873226e03b\",[],\"Slot\",1]\n7:I[\"3506b3d116f7\",[],\"ErrorBoundary\",1]\n8:I[\"a9bbde40cf2d\",[],\"default\",1]\n9:I[\"3506b3d116f7\",[],\"NotFoundBoundary\",1]\na:\"$Sreact.suspense\"\n:HL[\"/assets/index-BLEkI_5r.css\",\"style\"]\n") class="_meta_ka9gd_33">29 points by skogstokig 9 days ago | 4 comments Rendered at 04:11:01 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
On a personal level I’m very excited about AI getting good at math, but I’m a consumer of math, not a creator. My job gets easier as AI gets better on this front, so I can’t fully empathize with mathematicians who feel threatened or are worried about the sanctity of the discipline.
First I fear slop-math. People producing LLM “proofs” and prose with no value. I do not want to review something the author has spend lies energy on than I will spend reviewing.
Two, I am excited about formal machine-checked proofs. I love formalisation, and if the llm can prove my lemmas I will be a happy camper!
I think my optimism here is coloured by the fact that I am a theory builder, not a problem solver. I will be happy to create beautiful theory, writing (myself) wonderful articles explaining them, but letting the ugly details be formally verified by an LLM.
A problem solver kind of mathematician might feel cheated of all the fun of the llm did all the problem solving.