News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by catlifeonmars on Thursday October 08, 2026 @07:43AM (#50004654)
> but it is very productive in terms of hundreds of proofs being produced that had previously consumed uncountable hours of the brightest minds

You’re making the following assumptions:

1. the exercise of struggling to find proofs was not productive, but this is precisely how new techniques in math were produced. Brute forcing solutions doesn’t lend itself to the creation of much new mathematics (except maybe the exercise of developing verifiable proofs)

2. the point of doing mathematics is to be “productive” in the first place. This is silly. Many people get into mathematics because of the beauty of understanding, for example.

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by bonoboTP on Thursday October 08, 2026 @08:35AM (#50005082)
> 2. the point of doing mathematics is to be “productive” in the first place. This is silly. Many people get into mathematics because of the beauty of understanding, for example.

Are they independently wealthy? Or do they have a deal with their local supermarket that they can take food for free?

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by catlifeonmars on Thursday October 08, 2026 @10:57AM (#50006603)
So maybe we should just pay them more to do math and let them set the direction of research?

If your point is that capitalism fucks up the incentive structure and makes it all about maximizing productivity then I wholeheartedly agree with you.

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by bonoboTP on Thursday October 08, 2026 @01:52PM (#50009304)
What economic system do you recommend instead? Marxist-Leninist communism? Anarchism? Feudalism? I guess none of these will be fitting for what's coming...
Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by catlifeonmars on Friday October 09, 2026 @10:02PM (#50028779)
It’s definitely interesting to think about how all of this would play out.

To slightly deflect your question, what do you think will arise naturally?

I’d put my money on feudalism if SOTA model providers can stay far ahead of open weights models. However if that proves infeasible and everyone ends up having access to local AGI does that serve to level the playing field? What resources are still going to be scarce in the coming decades?

Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by HDThoreaun on Thursday October 08, 2026 @01:19PM (#50008748)
Very few people will pay mathematicians to produce as if they were making art. The big problem here is that counting proofs is how mathematicians historically have created legitimacy for the universities they work for. Mathematicians in the past 100 years have been paid solely for the prestige they generate, the work itself is irrelevant to the university. If the prestige signal dies universities will spend less on math departments. Every math professor will be expected to teach undergrads as well as a stable of grad students. That’s the value they are actually able to provide to universities.
Re:“Math 2.0” will need to value mathematical progress more ... by catlifeonmars on Saturday October 10, 2026 @01:49PM (#50035323)
> The big problem here is that counting proofs is how mathematicians historically have created legitimacy for the universities they work for

This is a really interesting point. This is almost analogous to a metric in software engineering like lines of code which is a proxy for something we actually want to measure.

In a way, the SOTA model providers are cargo culting what appears to be what mathematics is.