Gabby Domingo

Here's my best attempt at explaining what I think this open letter is really about. It's not just the math elites protecting their status. Imagine a tribe of monkeys who can see a dense grove of fruit trees at the center of the jungle. They all want to go there, but the jungle is dense and dangerous and there's no path. They offer a prize to any brave monkey explorer who can retrieve a particular kind of golden fruit that only grows at the absolute center of the grove. Officially, the goal is to get the fruit. But that's not really what the tribe cares about. What they actually want is for someone to discover a path through the grove. Once a path exists, everyone can follow it and share in the prized fruits. One day a strange bird appears. It flies directly over the trees and easily picks up the golden fruit, dropping it neatly at the monkeys' feet. By the rules of the prize, the bird has done what was asked of it. But the monkeys are dissatisfied. The task required no bravery from the bird, and more importantly, there's still no path to the grove. I think this captures some of the discomfort mathematicians have with AI. A correct proof is nominally the prize, but much of the value lies in the path to the proof: the concepts, techniques, and understanding that the proof creates. Human solvers create these naturally so there was no need to make them part of the prize. AI solvers don't. Even worse, they destroy the value of the prize which demotivates the human solvers and leaves the field impoverished.