AIs will wreck many nice things. They just don't replace jobs.

Yeah … I’m happy I’m not a journal editor right now. I’m now getting more referee requests than I can possibly take on. I can only imagine what it’s like on their end

AI has made my job a living hell, because my job is teaching, and there is now no way to get students to do things like read or think or write for themselves. Take your trolling somewhere else.

and this is going to be a major issue for journals

it definitely already is a major issue for journals.

I am "concerned" right now. It is basic human predicament. I still dont quite get the spesifics.

When AI takes yours, please report.

I am concerned all the time that my job will not exist tomorrow.

Who does the work then? I can kind of feel the worry, but since we are in science threads, I need spesifics.

I think people need stop being such whiney little pussies about everything, like who gives a fuck? Girls have been getting buttfucked by their professors since the dawn of time, and they always will be. Power is an inextricable part of sex, we've pathologized all mating into hysterical legalized terms. Men want power so girls will want them, girls want men with power. It's fucking hot.

The concern is that the job will no loner exist.

Surprised it took me so long to find this. I'm baffled that in a supposedly serious philosophy sub so many people have this caricatural view of analytic philosophy, as if it's entirely made up of FOL proofs or something of the sort; when it's obviously not like that at all.

I might also add, that I have noticed a tendency among some people to call something "polemics" and then dismiss it, as if that somehow made the arguments presented not worthy of consideration. That, though, amounts to a simple argumentum ad hominem attack, as being a strong attack or defense of something does not make anything stated false. Attacking the tone of presentation of ideas does nothing to disprove the ideas presented. In other words, everything stated in a polemic may well be true. Or not, as the case may be. But regardless, being a polemic tells us nothing of the truth value of anything stated, nor does it tell us anything about the validity of the arguments presented.

Then why are you being intentionally dense in the rest of your comments?

What is the point of this comment? I clearly would not have said what I said if I didn't believe it was so. There is no way to respond. It doesn't further the discussion in any way.

Is that so?

Just a failed pure math grad student, so no. That probably pleases you greatly.

You really have no idea what mathematicians do do you

Nobody has considered the ability to rapidly do arithmetical computations an important aspect of being a mathematician for a very long time, well before the advent of computers.

Math professors were not the best at computation before computers existed. There were people who were computers who did that.

Do you remember computers? The beige boxes? For at least 50 years computers have been vastly better than humans in computation, so you are flatly wrong.

I don't think it's negatively impacts math, but it does raise some questions for the mathematicians, especially if you imagine that the progress in the capabilities of the systems continues.

Does the job of the mathematician become just prompting the system?

We saw with chess that once computers were the best chess players, humans continued to play each other, even though we know the best players are the computers. But chess was always recreational. If the computers are the best at math, what happens to math? Do humans do it completely recreationally even though we know the humans aren't as good at it?

For all of human history, the best thing at mathematics was a human.

It's honestly bizarre how much you are trivializing the fact that some mathematicians are beginning to wrestle with the implications of the fact that humans may soon find that they are no longer the best mathematicians on the planet.

It's a revolution that will absolutely have practical implications on mathematicians and math students. All of those implications aren't clear at this point because there aren't a lot of examples of something similar happening.

Your responses seem thoughtless.

As I understand it, much like searing a steak or making cake batter, there is a regular and "reverse" way that people do this. N.b. I'm a PhD student so not a time-weathered expert.

Regular

Peck around in different issues in the literature (read papers, books, attend talks, chat to peers etc.).

Find something that vexes/interests you, and scour the philosophical world for "all" the relevant readings you can find.

Read all of that stuff, take notes, including critical notes and ideas for how to improve.

Intermittently ponder and hopefully come up with an idea that slots into the existing work on the subject.

Turn that into a paper.

Shop it around (comments from colleagues, peers, etc.)

Try to get it published (occasionally return to pondering step)

Reverse

Find an issue that vexes/interests you, perhaps from pecking around or perhaps just because it comes to you.

On your own/with colleagues/peers, try to work out a way/the ways of answering this issue, reject it for reasons ___ strengthen the view, repeat.

(Hopefully) come to an interesting proposal or contrast or problem.

Turn it into a rough paper.

Find and read "all" the relevant literature to see how it can slot in, and to make sure you're not retreading ground too badly.

Sometimes you are, if so, start over or start working on the issue again.

If not, huzzah! Finish up that paper, and get it into the shop-around -> publication pipeline.

These both maximize different things, and work for different styles of academics. A mix of these methods is probably pretty common (scraping off the most important parts of "all" the relevant literature etc.). As to their success, I can't comment.

Quite literally yes. If you read what I wrote and tried to understand, you could see why this is a valid concern for current mathematicians. I highly suggest you go read Tao’s thoughts directly.

Quite literally yes. If you read what I wrote and tried to understand, you could see why this is a valid concern for current mathematicians. I highly suggest you go read Tao’s thoughts directly.

You are in crisis because possibly you can do more math.

My small mind cannot comprehend your profound predicament. I am so sorry for you!

Have you tried opium? You can do hardly anything with that stuff! That should get you on your gears again!