Anybody can now pick up an open math problem (conjectured theorem without proof) using AI and let AI solve the problem, by proving the theorem to be correct or wrong, and send it to a math journal for publication with the persons name. Thus anybody can today ask for a position as a professor in mathematics. A new situation.
The math community meets the new situation with two ideas seeking to maintain the old system by introducing a requirement typically fulfilled in the old system with human mathematicians composing proofs of theorems as raison d'etre for having a chair as professor with salary, namely that the person putting name on a math article/proof (produced by AI) should be able to, at least partly, understand the proof.
There would thus be two categories of mathematicians both with impressive publications lists, one who understand, at least partly, the proofs in the list, and another who do not. And those who claim to understand, at least partly, would get paid.
Maybe a perfect system, but who would be able to decide if somebody understands, at least partly, or does not really understand so much? That would require some form of committee at the math department with members who really understand the proof at hand. The alternative would be honest self-evaluation: (i) understand everything, (ii) a bit and (iii) not much.
So the classical academic system over centuries built on named published work, is a facing a serious challenge. Has the individual scientist lost her/his name and then along with that existence?
In experimental science there would still be a niche for individual experimental work like an archaelogist digging in the ground for some old bones, but even that could better be done by a machine.
Inlägg
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar