One way to differentiate between an art or a craft and a science is that if a genie appeared and offered to trivialize all the discovery work of your career and simply give you the answers today, and you'd say "no", you're probably not doing science.
Not even wrong. Real scientists say "yes" to the genie with all the answers? And artists and crafts people don't? The entire statement is nonsense, and offers no insight into art or science. It's almost like a language model generated a plausible sentence that is grammatically correct but has no relation to the real world.
Perhaps if the analogy was between science and engineering.. A plumber would say "yes" to the genie that solves the problem immediately, if he/she got paid for the work instead of the genie (or the corporation providing the genie service). In that case the plumber is redundant and unnecessary, the customer can just ask the genie directly. A scientist would say "no" because the whole point of science is the knowledge and understanding, which is gained by the process of discovery and not given on a silver platter.
One should differentiate between "working in academia" and "doing science" here. Science is fundamentally about the curiosity, the desire to know, not the process of getting there.
If we can now know anything we want, we have an age of unimaginable abundance before us. I think it's more likely though that we will just be able to know more things than before and/or maybe learning new things faster - which is a good thing too, but there is still work for human scientists to do
No way. Science is not just about the desire to know. Almost all scientists I know (and I've met hundreds) care deeply about the joy of working out the problems themselves rather than just knowing the answers. The joy of finding that mental spark on your own to solve a problem - that's what makes it worthwhile. Just knowing everything right away is boring. If it were not, I'd just spend all the time in a library reading the work of others.
No, I think you're pretty overconfident here. A plumber is not in fact thrilled by the genie who permanently resolves all the world's plumbing problems.
I also kind of love the subtext in these responses that there is something suspect about crafts.
I live in Chicagoland, which has the largest water reclamation facility on Earth in order to prevent the entire region's basements from flooding under storm water pressure. It doesn't work, and I have multiple times had the pleasure of watching from my basement stairs as plumbers waded through raw sewage to clear obstructions in the lines at my house. It's a tough job that requires a lot of skill and nobody is doing that for love.
Sorry for the harsh tone in a comment above, reading it over I see that was unnecessary and rude. I did enjoy the story of the plumbers during the regular flooding in Chicago, much respect to their hard work.
While we may not agree on the question of the magical genie of all knowledge, whether an artist or scientist would/should welcome its gift (or bargain with the devil) for an instant answer - it was interesting to note that we implicitly knew the genie is not just a theoretical thought experiment, but a real thing that is happening.
The genie's out of the bottle, that much we can agree on, I think. Sooner or later it has the potential to become a better plumber, artist, and scientist, more skilled and knowledgeable than any living person. A day may come when a magnificent AI artist will wow the world with its creations, and even skeptics will have to admit that, damn, that is impressive. But then again, so what? I'd rather have the genie wading through sewage to fix plumbing, so that a plumber could spend more time with their family and pursue that novel they've been dreaming of writing, or painting in the backyard, or working on a mad science project in the basement.
I believe this too: that the current moment with LLMs is destabilizing to all sorts of knowledge work, and especially to non-bench-work sciences, but that over the long run it's just going to raise the game. I'm not a person who thinks LLMs are going to moot all human scientific endeavor. I know those people exist (both on the anti-AI and especially pro-AI side). That's not where I'm coming from.
I just think knocking out unsolved problems in mathematics is an absolute good. Imagine, in a more grounded analogy, a whole family of neo-Ramanujans discovered somewhere in Namibia, and then tearing through all the open problems, upturning a bunch of careers in the west in the process. It's hard to argue that would be a bad thing (I think we'd call it miraculous). But AI has a partisan valence that sometimes obscures what's happening.
I appreciate the generous response. My tone couldn't have been any better (and I didn't really read yours as harsh, just spirited). Way to be an excellent HN'er! :)
Their sentence makes perfect sense to me. Science is about knowledge, art is about the process of creation. Conflating the two is just doing a hobby at that point.
I think "being concerned with knowledge" and "being invested in the process of creation/discovery" can occur at the same time. There isn't a singular "scientific mindset" or set of values that differentiates what is and isn't science. It's just silly.
Disregarding the competing definitions of “science”, a significant value in mathematical work is “the journey”. The truth or falsehood of individual results are rarely as important as the machinery developed to deliver it. If all the genie did was tell you something was true or false, the only learning you gain is to backtrack and develop the machinery yourself. To a certain extent this is true of the other sciences too.
Of course it does because the joy of math is discovering something yourself. At some point you just want to stare at a blank sheet of paper, start with a premise and go on a journey. Are you a mathematician or scientist? I am and just typing "tell me the proof of this result" sounds immensely boring to me.
Have you ever played a video game with an "invincibility cheat"? Boring. But you do get to the end and "solve the game".
Sure they can, as with each successive generation one learns the past works and then works to build on them. This genie just makes the past works be instantly created. In other words, I'm sure some mathematicians like to derive everything entirely from scratch but that's not most of them.
An impressive number of things don’t make sense about this thought experiment. Whatever the genie says wouldn’t have much to do with the life you live afterwards, since your life changes after hearing the info. One persons careers worth of discovery work is not that much. A lot of work is dependent on the state of the world and can’t be moved into the past, even language changes. Someone could still do a craft or science or whatever afterwards— assuming life continues to have surprising complexity, the genie could only ever just scratch the surface.
If you say "yes," you're also not doing science (anymore). Therein lies the problem with this take: most of science isn't done with the objective of getting to any specific finish line, and this is particularly true for math.
As the old saying goes, the purpose of a system is what it does, so there might be some Platonic ideal of science we can appeal to, but the practice of science by humans is about the craft as much as it is about the truth.
The only "fields" where a genie appearing and doing all your work for you are fields (jobs) where you only about the money at the end. There are some fields where a serious practitioner might be happy to have a genie do all the "grunt work" (though what people that is varies - I'm not sure what "discovery work" means here but it doesn't matter since present AI promises to do everything in the future if not now).
And this analogy breaks down further given that both the real now genie and the hypothetically more powerful genie of the future would each work for your (ex) employer.
I should have put have put things as "when you are primarily interested in some benefit outside of the task at hand". Some of those benefits might be great, sure. But it's still not necessarily going to improve the enjoyment of the professional.
Edit: Also, not all of the things on your list are the same. I would note that P!=NP would be a theorem whose proof would offer no practical benefits except for the potential mathematical machinery created to achieve the proof rather than what it tells us about practical algorithm time (the theory is about worst case, not average case, an algorithm that's O(n^100) is as effectively intractable as an algorithm that's O(2^n), etc).
Would it if it meant that the entire joy of creating art was mostly gone from the world because the social value of it was diminished? Not really. And all that technology is not free. It needs rare earth mining, land usage, and habitat destruction that will likely cause even more cancer, mental problems, health problems, etc.
To my knowledge, none of the negative sentiment regarding AI has ever been directed at its medical applications. Maybe the AI companies should instead focus on those things.
there's a human element in discovery and in problem solving. Whether or not somebody chooses to sidestep work isn't necessarily an indication that the work isn't science. It's just an indication that some people are passionate and invested in performing the work.
But what if the genie instead offered (or threatened) to give _everyone_ the answers to everything you'll ever discover in your career, including your boss, your competitors, etc?
Tell me you’ve never experienced the joy of solving a math problem without telling me you’ve never experienced the joy of solving a math problem.
Also, in your scenario, the genie is used undermine all of human thought, destroy the ability for people to support themselves in the current economic system (which is in and of itself horrific already) , and is making people consider / commit suicide. Thats not a genie, thats a demon.
You're describing craftsmanship. What's wild about this thread is the comfort with which people who disagree with me dismiss entirely the value of craft. It's as if I said "on one hand, there's science; on the other hand there's pointlessly wasting your time".
