“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more holistically

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by cs_throwaway on Thursday October 08, 2026 @01:39AM (#50002116)

Let us know when it is clear that UCLA does not hire the candidate with the most top-tier journal papers.

It’s more likely that instead of spending a 100K/year direct grant on two PhD students, PIs will hire 1 and have the student spend 50K on AI.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by rao-v on Thursday October 08, 2026 @03:30AM (#50002838)

My understanding is that top tier math programs don't hire based on journal pubs and haven't for a bit. Math journals are pretty slow and hiring is really via reputation building based on one or two big wow ideas / proofs propogated via arxiv and talks.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by cs_throwaway on Thursday October 08, 2026 @05:53AM (#50003840)

It’s just as unlikely that this will cease. hiring a professor at a top school because they were an excellent math teacher… It won’t happen.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by prodigycorp on Thursday October 08, 2026 @01:41AM (#50002128)

More likely is that frontier labs give huge discounts of EDUs if they consent to allowing training.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by leni536 on Thursday October 08, 2026 @06:06AM (#50003923)

Plus requiring attribution in papers.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by sebzim4500 on Thursday October 08, 2026 @06:36AM (#50004138)

Maybe, but I suspect that AI in maths will soon become so prevalent that it's use will be assumed by readers whether there is attribution or not.

[ Parent | on HN ]