• Home
  • Technology
  • Gaming
  • Entertainment
  • World & Business
  • Science
  • Sports
  • AI
HomeTechnologyGamingEntertainmentWorld & BusinessScienceSportsAI
    • Home
    • Technology
    • Gaming
    • Entertainment
    • World & Business
    • Science
    • Sports
    • AI
    AI

    AI capabilities, mathematicians’ careers and the stakes for humanity

    One post argues that AI’s implications for humanity should take priority over concerns about mathematicians’ careers.

    Lucas Beyer (bl16)LB
    Susan ZhangSZ
    Arvind NarayananAN
    15 Sources, ,

    TLDR

    The post calls for a broader focus when considering AI capabilities: “The focus should not be on the implications of AI capabilities on the careers of mathematicians but rather the implications on humanity.”

    Combined views

    501.7K

    15 Sources, first seen 21d ago

    Combined views

    501.7K

    15 Sources, first seen 21d ago

    2.9K likes
    21d ago
    first seen 21d ago
    2.9K likes
    404 comments
    709 saves
    721 reposts
    404 comments
    709 saves
    721 reposts

    Sentiment

    Positive25.4%74.6%Negative

    Summary

    Many accounts condemned mathematicians for signing letters on 10% AI extinction risk without critical scrutiny and attacked those minimizing dangers, while others defended prioritizing misalignment concerns over career impacts.

    Based on 84 sentiment-bearing replies from 63 accounts across 5 conversations.

    Sentiment

    Positive25.4%74.6%Negative

    Summary

    Many accounts condemned mathematicians for signing letters on 10% AI extinction risk without critical scrutiny and attacked those minimizing dangers, while others defended prioritizing misalignment concerns over career impacts.

    Based on 84 sentiment-bearing replies from 63 accounts across 5 conversations.

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    Today's Rank

    —

    Not ranked yet

    15 Sources

    Timothy Gowers @wtgowers@wtgowersI have signed a letter from 42 fellows and foreign members of the Royal Society to Paul Nurse, the president of the society, concerning the need to treat the serious risks of AI as an emergency. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-xOkPeHmDEdRigT2YcP2nLfTB56yOn4FFbBfVUIXCUE/edit?tab=t.021d
    Boaz Barak@boazbaraktcsThis is the right concern. The focus should not be on the implications of AI capabilities on the careers of mathematicians but rather the implications on humanity.21d
    Susan Zhang@suchenzangincredibly intelligent maths people taking other domains at face value and projecting them to be equivalent to maths and therefore equivalent in disruptiveness will never cease to amaze me frontier minds, like frontier models, remain jagged as ever21d
    Lucas Beyer (bl16)@giffmana@suchenzang Haha good catch, now that they can math, it's highly likely! Previously when they could "only" code, make art, go over contracts, ... it was not highly likely yet!20d
    Luke Muehlhauser@lukeprogSome of the most accomplished mathematicians in the world (e.g. several Fields medals) say the much-quoted ≥10% chance of human extinction from AI in the next decade is not hype, and this is a true emergency.20d
    Itai Sher@itaisherThere is a strange laundering of this number. It was floated by Anthropic employees without public justification. Then mathematicians pick it up and now it is attributed to their judgment. It’s fine to survey AI practitioners, but posts like this are a bad epistemic practice.20d
    Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞)@teortaxesTexFor years, Gowers has been extremely optimistic and even impatient about AI automating mathematical discovery. He's not doing this for job security. He just took AI seriously before virtually all of his peers, and now updates all the way.20d
    Séb Krier@sebkrierRT @itaisher: There is a strange laundering of this number. It was floated by Anthropic employees without public justification. Then mathem…20d
    Arvind Narayanan@random_walkerOver 2 years ago @sayashk and I wrote a detailed deconstruction of p(doom) and argued that its primary function is to launder vague, evidence-free intuitions and fears through a facade of quantification. It remains 100% relevant today. https://www.normaltech.ai/p/ai-existential-risk-probabilities20d
    Joel Lehman@joelbot3000"Over 2 years ago the AI safety community wrote a detailed deconstruction of "resistance to subjective probabilities as a semi-reasonable form of evidence" and argued that its primary function is to launder vague, evidence-free intuitions through a facade of philosophical depth." Isn't is true that if you view their attempts as politics, then you should apply the same lens to your own argument? Obviously we can't expect "p(doom)" to have any kind of precision, and I'm not a fan of putting 'probabilities' to the nebulous future, but it seems odd to promote this view now, given that recent events (HF etc.) provide more direct evidence of tail risk (potentially existential, but sure still speculative) from AI acceleration?20d

    15 Sources

    Timothy Gowers @wtgowers@wtgowersI have signed a letter from 42 fellows and foreign members of the Royal Society to Paul Nurse, the president of the society, concerning the need to treat the serious risks of AI as an emergency. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-xOkPeHmDEdRigT2YcP2nLfTB56yOn4FFbBfVUIXCUE/edit?tab=t.021d
    Boaz Barak@boazbaraktcsThis is the right concern. The focus should not be on the implications of AI capabilities on the careers of mathematicians but rather the implications on humanity.21d
    Susan Zhang@suchenzangincredibly intelligent maths people taking other domains at face value and projecting them to be equivalent to maths and therefore equivalent in disruptiveness will never cease to amaze me frontier minds, like frontier models, remain jagged as ever21d
    Lucas Beyer (bl16)@giffmana@suchenzang Haha good catch, now that they can math, it's highly likely! Previously when they could "only" code, make art, go over contracts, ... it was not highly likely yet!20d
    Luke Muehlhauser@lukeprogSome of the most accomplished mathematicians in the world (e.g. several Fields medals) say the much-quoted ≥10% chance of human extinction from AI in the next decade is not hype, and this is a true emergency.20d
    Itai Sher@itaisherThere is a strange laundering of this number. It was floated by Anthropic employees without public justification. Then mathematicians pick it up and now it is attributed to their judgment. It’s fine to survey AI practitioners, but posts like this are a bad epistemic practice.20d
    Teortaxes▶️ (DeepSeek 推特🐋铁粉 2023 – ∞)@teortaxesTexFor years, Gowers has been extremely optimistic and even impatient about AI automating mathematical discovery. He's not doing this for job security. He just took AI seriously before virtually all of his peers, and now updates all the way.20d
    Séb Krier@sebkrierRT @itaisher: There is a strange laundering of this number. It was floated by Anthropic employees without public justification. Then mathem…20d
    Arvind Narayanan@random_walkerOver 2 years ago @sayashk and I wrote a detailed deconstruction of p(doom) and argued that its primary function is to launder vague, evidence-free intuitions and fears through a facade of quantification. It remains 100% relevant today. https://www.normaltech.ai/p/ai-existential-risk-probabilities20d
    Joel Lehman@joelbot3000"Over 2 years ago the AI safety community wrote a detailed deconstruction of "resistance to subjective probabilities as a semi-reasonable form of evidence" and argued that its primary function is to launder vague, evidence-free intuitions through a facade of philosophical depth." Isn't is true that if you view their attempts as politics, then you should apply the same lens to your own argument? Obviously we can't expect "p(doom)" to have any kind of precision, and I'm not a fan of putting 'probabilities' to the nebulous future, but it seems odd to promote this view now, given that recent events (HF etc.) provide more direct evidence of tail risk (potentially existential, but sure still speculative) from AI acceleration?20d