@SchlichtDenk@iamParthaSG Never said ai will cure cancer. I argued about “finding a cure to cancer” meaning that the end result being more of importance than the process
Today we remember astronaut Ronald E. McNair, born OTD in 1950 in Lake City, South Carolina. McNair, a physicist, jazz saxophonist, and karate black belt, was selected as a NASA astronaut candidate in 1978 and flew his first shuttle mission in 1984.
He tragically perished in the Challenger accident on Jan. 28. 1986, yet his legacy of excellence, curiosity, and perseverance lives on.
@SchlichtDenk@iamParthaSG It’s just an analogy which is easy to use and reason about since it has a pretty decent binary outcome, I don’t even know much about cancer research so …
@iamParthaSG@SchlichtDenk I agree highest standards should be maintained at all times. But at the same time progress shouldn’t be slowed to cater people, it’s the people who should step up and adapt
@iamParthaSG@SchlichtDenk Sure then first press the button when you have the knowledge of whether RH is true or not (or in other words when you’ve cured cancer) then you can spend all the time in the world understanding how it happened
@iamParthaSG@SchlichtDenk That’s the second thing I agree with you on. I understand that not all theorems will have an immediate impact/use but stopping others from giving out more theorems just to make sure others are keeping pace with the progress isn’t right in my humble opinion.
@iamParthaSG@SchlichtDenk I’ll ask you a simpler question. Is it more important to find a cure of cancer or to enhance the human understanding of cancer and slow walk the process of finding a cure?
@iamParthaSG@SchlichtDenk Hate to say this but it’s very evident that you would rather have a proof not discovered at all than it be discovered by some ai etc. math doesn’t belong to anyone. For your human understanding argument— one can always try to understand the proofs discovered, be it by human or ai
@iamParthaSG@SchlichtDenk You’re missing the link. All proofs exist in an invisible library, and they need to be discovered. It’s irrelevant who does it. You can’t say that and go on and say “human understanding is value”. Either that is or the discovery is, it surely can’t be both?
@iamParthaSG@SchlichtDenk Humans are no one to decide what the “value of mathematics is”
If a prof can prove a critical theorem faster than me then he should go ahead and prove it and not wait for me to enhance my understanding of it.