This makes me wonder how the tribes of math will change as a result, as well as the relative status and prestige of subfields.
David Bessis has a long essay on the future of mathematics: The fall of the theorem economy. He argues convincingly that obtaining theorems was never a fundamental goal of mathematics. The real goal was always increasing human understanding of mathematical concepts. He argues that theorems are only valued so highly because they have been the most important (but imperfect) proxy for measuring contributions to mathematical understanding. You had to have deep understanding to come up with a proof. Bessis calls this monomaniacal focus on theorems “Hardy’s curse”, and the dynamic of theorems being the hard social currency of mathematics (citations, academic positions), the “theorem economy”. With the automation of proving theorems, they will lose most of their social prestige due to goodharting, and the theorem economy will break down, while leaving mathematics itself mostly untouched. The essay also touches on a lot of other interesting points.
David Bessis has a long essay on the future of mathematics: The fall of the theorem economy. He argues convincingly that obtaining theorems was never a fundamental goal of mathematics. The real goal was always increasing human understanding of mathematical concepts. He argues that theorems are only valued so highly because they have been the most important (but imperfect) proxy for measuring contributions to mathematical understanding. You had to have deep understanding to come up with a proof. Bessis calls this monomaniacal focus on theorems “Hardy’s curse”, and the dynamic of theorems being the hard social currency of mathematics (citations, academic positions), the “theorem economy”. With the automation of proving theorems, they will lose most of their social prestige due to goodharting, and the theorem economy will break down, while leaving mathematics itself mostly untouched. The essay also touches on a lot of other interesting points.