Not sure whose ego is being insulted here. If you spend two seconds reading the letter you’d realize it’s talking about human understanding has been crucial to advancing of mathematics, and AI companies are not bothering with it. If they succeed, human understanding becomes irrelevant. The beauty of math that you claim comes from the process of humans understanding it. Maybe you should try to redirect your emotions and misdirected feelings of schadenfraude to /dev/null and try to read what it is about

The problem isn’t the proofs, it’s proper attribution.

thought this link is better / cleaner: https://unwall.app/www.economist.com/science-and-technology/...

It's also sort of a misleading gloss of what is going on in that dialogue, which, it is important to note _is in a book_ -- one of many that Plato wrote. Plato has Socrates recount a story (supposedly) from ancient Egypt in which an Egyptian god claims that books will make people forgetful. He never makes that claim himself, as a character, and certainly Plato didn't believe it, because he wrote lots of books before and after that dialogue. The general thrust of that section of the dialogue is that writing can be a useful tool for remembering, but _not_ sufficient for learning, which requires person to person interaction and dialogue.

What a shallow midwit reductionist take. This is no different than people who claim that artists are only mad because AI has made everyone world class “artists”.

That should not be downvoted..this is true for manu people on this forum too.

But we have the same examples in chess, running, bodybuilding etc..all of which machines have out performed us.

And that good for humans are finding their true natural again, an intelligent consciousness animals. We take pride in that.

Let's allow robots at the Olympics and laugh at the poor athletes losing! /s

There is nothing wrong with the desire to be smart, actually succeeding at being smart, and then expecting some recognition for that achievement.