Neural networks are already systems of linear algebra that are beyond human understanding. Most humans could probably grok a 1 or 2 dimensional slice of a network, but the latent vector space is completely beyond the human brain. We have to use tools to analyze neural networks piecemeal in exactly the same way that we analyze any other higher-dimensional construct. Few humans are truly capable of reasoning in 4+ dimensions, that doesn't make string theory "not math". Nor does a trillion-dimension vector space of an LLM make it "not programming". Humans by themselves invented mathematical concepts beyond human understanding a long time before we invented neural networks.

To further this assertion, there is almost no value to deeply esoteric math that is technically correct, but completely inapplicable to any scientific reality, and completely unintelligible to humans. Consider these findings deep, dark corners in the unfathomably large hyperspace of mathematics. My guess is AI will be incredibly adept at identifying these types of findings, and it will be exceedingly difficult for humans to identify what is meaningful and what is not in the slop.

Your model of what AI is good at is wrong. Generative AI is not good at wandering off into novel esoteric abstract corners while maintaining correctness, it is good at things that are close to its training data. I suspect that humans will long outperform AI in the domain of "novel esoteric abstract useless math" whereas AI will outperform humans in the domains of (1) making connections between already-well-understood concepts, things that seem obvious in retrospect but which no human figured out just because of the accidents of what people happened to focus on, and (2) proving things that require long, tedious, intellectually unsatisfying calculations, which would cause a human mathematician to give up for boredom.

Works of Shinichi Mochizuki immediately come to mind. He is not AI but provides very good examples of math that is useless because it is incomprehensible by (other) humans.

Like other commenters, I think you’re also underestimating the complexity of esoteric higher level math. Consider the “Magnus Carlsen” of mathematics, who is more capable of understanding mathematics than any other human. But then also realize that that individual has probably devoted their entire career into a specific subdomain of mathematics. Within other deep recesses of mathematics, this Magnus equivalent will be less capable than their peers without years of rewiring their brain to understand the esoteric concepts and properties within that other subdomain. LLMs will be able to dig deeper and broader than any human mathematician, and find results that are completely useless to humans because it would take more than an entire lifetime to “speak the language” of the concepts the LLMs have produced. The only way those results can become useful to humans is if then the LLM itself finds a way for it to be practical to humans once again. So, no, I don’t think this represents the “democratization” of mathematics where mathematicians are no longer necessary because anyone can just prompt the LLM to explain it. The bar for entry level mathematics is lower, for sure, but research level mathematics will continue to be unapproachable for anyone who hasn’t devoted their career to it.

No, it doesn’t sound like you get it. It has nothing to do with the properties of LLMs and everything to do with the complexity of mathematics. Have you ever been exposed to concepts that are so complex that you feel like you could devote your entire lifetime to trying to understand it and still fall short? It’s a very humbling experience, especially if you have classmates who pick it up effortlessly. Without a human holding the reins, consider an LLM a rudderless superboat speeding erratically towards the horizon, finding and proving meaningless theorems that not even your most talented classmate could ever begin to understand. My point is the human is a critical piece to the puzzle, but not just any human, a career mathematician.

Micromanagement wasn't the message I took from that. Rather the level of human involvement required which (it seems like) the two of you more or less agree on. The meaning I took was how far it's possible to travel from the shore - ie the scope of the state space. The mathematics we're exposed to is all quite shallow compared to what will (presumably) be possible between digital formalization and massive ML models. But the latter probably can't ever be understood by regular biological humans.

> Sorry but I couldn't agree less. > … > True knowledge is, and will be, a human endeavor, deiven by human curiosity. Promoting curiosity is the sign of a developed society. Unless I misunderstand, it sounds like you do agree? My point is that without human mathematicians LLM output is meaningless, and without human mathematicians holding the reins, LLMs would probably quickly devolve into “proving” things that are not only completely unintelligible by humans, but have no utility. Your examples of esoteric mathematical concepts are anecdata. The vast majority of esoteric mathematics does not have utility. Mathematics is an incredibly large space of concepts. Consider the number of provable theorems in number theory alone, perhaps even related to specific subsets and sequences of numbers. The vast majority of the findings in that domain will not be isomorphic to some real world problem, they will be trivia. We will need mathematicians to separate the signal from the noise.

When I use the word “esoteric”, I mean it at an absolutely hyperbolic level. Like exploring new-but-basically-useless axiom spaces, and creating concepts for which there exists no clean metaphor in time-space - like quantum mechanics on steroids. And then creating multiplicatively more complex concepts by combining those concepts together. There’s no way to “ELI5” this type of complexity. I’m talking about concepts exponentially more esoteric than quantum mechanics, and even within quantum mechanics there is nothing to ELI5 for a concept like “spin”. The best you can do is say that it’s a property of a particle. But imagine the words “property” and “particle” are also completely meaningless to you because they’re built on even more layers of conceptual mathematical abstraction.

A statement that some proposition is true or false is usually less useful than a new framework for understanding the class of problem. A machine that takes longer and longer to prove propositions in ever more inscrutable ways is hardly useful at all. The machine too needs to produce more generalizable and comprehensible systems, for it to scale up its own conceptualization. Needing to load all the new mathematics in the context window won't be great either.

I think the bigger issue is that mathematicians historically invented the abstractions to make maths easier to understand for humans. With LLMs, will we get abstractions that only computers can understand?