How AI could bring about the mass adoption of open access in mathematics – and beyond

These changes are already taking place in the world of mathematics, which is the first to be impacted by the new capabilities of powerful AI models. It is not yet clear how quickly other fields will be affected. Academic fields closest to mathematics – physics, chemistry, engineering etc. – are likely to be the first to see similar dramatic breakthrough results from AI models. Moreover, if mathematics successfully shifts away from today’s emphasis on publications towards a broader appreciation of skills, it may be that other fields will recognise the benefits of doing so and start following suit – with or without pressure from AI.

On Walled Culture.

In The Wake Of The Latest Unprecedented AI Proofs, What Now For Mathematics And Mathematicians?

In this view, mathematicians will still prove theorems and come up with counterexamples, but they will do it because they enjoy it, not because their career depends upon it. Society will benefit from the coming flood of new AI-derived results, as we move from an era of proof scarcity to an era of proof abundance, but there will still be a place for human mathematicians to interpret those results, to pass them on to the wider community, and to build on them, probably using AI to do so. In this respect, they will become what the “technical philosopher” Logan Graves calls “priests”

On Techdirt.

Open Source Mathematics

Suppose Jane is a well-known mathematician who announces she has proved a theorem. We probably will believe her, but she knows that she will be required to produce a proof if requested. However, suppose now Jane says a theorem is true based partly on the results of software. The closest we can reasonably hope to get to a rigorous proof (without new ideas) is the open inspection and ability to use all the computer code on which the result depends. If the program is proprietary, this is not possible. We have every right to be distrustful, not only due to a vague distrust of computers but because even the best programmers regularly make mistakes.

Seems pretty obvious, really: no open source, no transparency, no way of following the logic, no proof: QED.

And if you can't really believe closed source for maths or science, why should you believe it in business? How can you check an accountancy program, say, if you can't see the code? And don't even get me started on closed-source e-voting machines... (Via The Inquirer.)