I don't think that's the same. Would you let robots raise your kids if they provably did it better than you?

These people knew someone else could solve the problem. Presumably they figured there'd still be meaningful work for them to do - exploring ramifications, new frontiers opened by the solution. Other problems, at worst. Now it all seems far from guaranteed.

I agree about well-adjustedness, but what do you propose these people do to get paid if the number of researchers with grants reduces significantly? Reskill to something that pays less, they like less, and might be automated too? Can you frankly say this wouldn't be a moral blow to anyone, well-adjustedness and all?

The analogy with kids breaks the moment you introduce getting paid.

No one will pay me for raising my kids. I’d probably have to pay the robot.

So the question remains: is it about solving the problem for humanity? Solving the problem for yourself? Or getting paid?

I don't think you can so easily call for separating them when so many people grew up in an environment that ties economic value and a respectful place in society so strongly.

> So the question remains: is it about solving the problem for humanity? Solving the problem for yourself? Or getting paid?

Say it's a mix, which I think is most likely. They enjoy the problem-solving, like doing something that feels meaningful to humanity, and obviously need to get paid. Now what?

I personally think they’re enough problems left for humanity to solve.

Of course I am not denying the brutality for those who are right in the middle of finishing something.

I am optimistic for those who haven’t started, which the video is referring to.

I feel like we're arguing past each other. My point is, it's hard for me to see lack of empathy towards mathematicians (and other professionals) who stand to be displaced by these developments. I know I shouldn't take internet strangers too seriously but, when I read the comments here, I feel like some people have deep resentment for those mathematicians, portraying them as going into math in bad faith or something, and now fighting to keep their ill-gained positions.

> I personally think they’re enough problems left for humanity to solve.

For sure, whether those displaced will be able to get to work on them - and whether it will be as fulfilling as their previous work - is not at all guaranteed.

"The market doesn't owe you to do fulfilling work" Yes, but it costs you nothing to be sympathetic to the individual humans that have to undergo these changes, which can be all shades of scary and sad.

> Of course I am not denying the brutality for those who are right in the middle of finishing something.

And those who worked on a problem for 5 years, trying dozens of approaches, and weren't close to finishing something? People over-fixate on the specific problem. The big picture narrative here is, in the best case, "the way we're going to do math will be completely different", and in the worst case, "we'll need much fewer mathematicians".

> I am optimistic for those who haven’t started, which the video is referring to.

Perhaps. This comment chain is about the other side, the so-called rent seekers.

Ok I’m a stranger on the internet who tries to genuinely understand.

To that end I’ve read all your comments. I am not sure what you’re proposing or asking people to do?

Are you asking for empathy? I have a lot of respect and empathy for people who dedicated their life to solving complex problems.

At the same time I’m trying to be optimistic by saying not all is lost. Yes people will need to adjust. I’m arguing continual change and adaption have always been part of life.

I'm asking people not to be so unkind to other people grieving the (potential) loss of a significant part of their life. "If you cared so much about the problem, you'd be thrilled when a solution is found; since you're not thrilled you must be in it for selfish reasons and deserve to be displaced." You didn't write it, but the comment I replied to pretty much did.

I agree that there's room for optimism, but the conduct and messaging of the AI labs isn't very inspiring in that regard. The feeling I get from it is "we're going to push forward at any cost and make humane considerations only when we can afford to. Which isn't a lot because we've got to be the first to AGI or others will make it first and do it wrong." People then get pushed to the sidelines, many whose work contributed to the feasibility of LLM capabilities in the first place. Free market and such. But then they get criticized when they're upset about it?

Give them space to deal with it and help them find optimism, or at least, don't judge them.

>No one will pay me for raising my kids.

In the near future, this may very will be the case in order to address the population decline. But I digress.

The big assumption here is that "problems are being solved" in every field affected. Which they are not.

Just as the most basic example: software is not currently being made faster, nor performing better nor at a higher bar of quality. Maybe developers are able to report higher velocity, but this is not leading to faster shipping of software/features. In fact, people seemed to feel software is buggier than ever and companies are doubling down on it and simply adding placeholders of "AI can make mistakes". Unforgivable 10 years ago if we tried that with humans.

If anything, the rent seeking is with people reporting "being more productive than ever" and despite that less real world problems being solved than the previous decade.

Nobody goes into these fields only interested in the final result, they go into it interested both in the challenge and revelations of the process and the triumph and recognition of achieving the final result.

There's no joy to be derived from a completed crossword puzzle if you weren't the one solving it...

This analogy is only valid if you're confident that parents would not say meaning is vaporized if you turned their 8-year-olds into 18-year-olds overnight, and there was reason to believe this would frequently happen to families in the future, probability increasing. The exact problem is that the situation in mathematics is not akin to "finally moving out" but instead to "immediately moving out". I imagine few people would be OK with it.

Also I find the suggestion that the people unhappy with the AI-in-mathematics situation are psychologically unwell to be presumptuous, to put it mildly.