On: What's the future for pure math research in the age of AI?

[demibabs]

AI training on its own output is (probably) fine if it’s validated, like a lean-verified proof to Navier-Stokes.

Because it being validated as correct resolves the main issue with incestuous training, which is compounding error.

[smitty1e → demibabs]

But from whence come the fresh insights?

[s1artibartfast → smitty1e]

The AI provides fresh insights as the output.

AI creates novel discovery> incorporates this information > makes new discovery

This is how it works for humans too.

[smitty1e → s1artibartfast]

One wonders at the fresh/derived breakdown.

"AI slop", for example, appears a regression toward some "mean".

[s1artibartfast → smitty1e]

This is also how it works for humans too. What portion of human art produced in 2025 or 1925 do you think was fresh and novel, compared to derived and repetitive?

The same is true for science and Engineering.

What matters is if you have a method of sorting through the repetitive trash

[smitty1e → s1artibartfast]

It's not my contention that AI & people do not both conform to Sturgeon's Law[0].

Rather, that AI is unlikely to produce a fresh Marcin Patrzalek[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law

[1] https://youtu.be/zbfKFa-reBE?is=pHxTCFcfyU0evbvi