Gary Marcus

Rank 13 of 47
|
Score 97
7/20/2025, 8:07:34 PM
X
In reply to:
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
66d
@GaryMarcus I agree it’s unlikely near-term but I’d be mildly surprised if AI tools did not have absolute advantage over human mathematicians in most research tasks by the end of my career.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
66d
@littmath i don’t doubt that it will be useful. it’s the “it will soon replace professional mathematicians” stuff that eg Schmidt said the other day that seems bogus to me
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
66d
@GaryMarcus Maybe worth saying in case it’s not clear from the thread that I’m quite bullish on AI-for-math.
Gary Marcus
@GaryMarcus
·
66d
good thread on IMO vs professional mathematics
Daniel Litt
@littmath
·
66d
An AI tool that gets gold on the IMO is obviously immensely impressive. Does it mean math is “solved”? Is an AI-generated proof of the Riemann hypothesis clearly on the horizon? Obviously not.

The statement by @littmath engages in a discussion about the future role of AI in mathematics, which is a public issue related to technology and its impact on professional fields. The tone is somewhat dismissive, suggesting that the original poster's youth affects their perspective on the matter.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement does not directly cause harm, but the dismissive tone could be seen as undermining constructive dialogue.
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement does not engage in cyberbullying or hate speech, but it does not fully respect the dignity of the other participant by implying their opinion is less valid due to their age. [-1]
  3. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement does not engage in constructive criticism and instead makes a personal remark about the other participant's age, which could be seen as an ad hominem argument. [-2]