Linguist challenges the "math is understanding, not proofs" argument against AI-generated proofs
Orgasm_Faker · reddit · 2026-10-10
A linguistics-background Reddit user pushes back on the heated AI math debate: why fixate on "mathematics is about understanding, not proofs" without ever defining "understanding"?
- A mathematician's ten years of failed attempts mainly benefit the mathematician; later researchers just read the proof and build their own understanding — that's how knowledge has always spread.
- If AI produces the same proof in hours with full reasoning, why call it "an answer without understanding"?
- AI-generated papers can equally reveal which methods work, expose unexpected connections, and inspire theories the AI never proposed. A paper's value should lie in what readers learn, not the author's struggle.
- Even granting that AI recombines training data: how much of human mathematical creativity is also recombination of existing ideas? Evaluate AI proofs case by case rather than dismissing them wholesale.
More from AGI Musings
- ISMS Fellow Avi Goldfarb: AI disruption raises returns to exploring research directions — avicgoldfarb · 2026-10-23
- signull on AI-found PHP exploits: economic liability is the forcing function legacy software needs — signulll · 2026-10-23
- TheStalwart: Talking computers are sparking a new philosophical boom, echoing ancient Greece — toptickcrypto · 2026-10-23
- AI cyberattacks could paradoxically accelerate AI development in an offense-defense arms race — kimmonismus · 2026-10-23
- Economist on AI detector Pangram: not a filter, but a useful verification signal — paulnovosad · 2026-10-23
- Economist Novosad: Pangram scores can't convict AI writing, but help triage suspicion — paulnovosad · 2026-10-23