Mathematicians debate proof value and incentives as AI enters theorem-proving
marc_lelarge · x · 2026-09-05
Scott Armstrong argues "correct but negative-value proof" is a dumb framing—if incentives are the problem, change them. Marc Lelarge counters by quoting Thurston (1994): mathematicians are driven by economics and status, wanting personal understanding and "theorem-credits" in a credit-driven system. The debate is timely as AI-generated proofs reshape what mathematical work is worth.
More from AGI Musings
- Data center electricians reportedly earn up to $500K a year as CS grads face unemployment — _jaydeepkarale · 2026-09-05
- AI progress vs. doomer YouTube: blogger calls out channels ignoring Fable 5.1 and Astra — haider1 · 2026-09-05
- Paul Graham's one-line LLM history: an overconfident undergrad we keep teaching to be right — victor_explore · 2026-09-05
- Blogger Outlines Superintelligence Roadmap: Connect 8 Billion Minds to Automate Science — Brian821 · 2026-09-05
- Turing Award winner David Patterson: superintelligence will first feel like joy — davidpattersonx · 2026-09-05
- People hold two incoherent AGI beliefs at once, researcher argues — danfaggella · 2026-09-05