AI is breaking our proxies for expertise
AI is breaking our proxies for expertiseMathematicians are broadly not anti-AI. They’re more culturally open to using AI as a tool than, say, artists or writers1. However, now that more and more genuinely prestigious problems have fallen to AI, that might be changing.
- ▪AI is breaking our proxies for expertiseMathematicians are broadly not anti-AI.
- ▪They’re more culturally open to using AI as a tool than, say, artists or writers1.
- ▪However, now that more and more genuinely prestigious problems have fallen to AI, that might be changing.
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 4,621 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Seangoedecke |
| Canonical URL | https://www.seangoedecke.com/ai-is-breaking-our-proxies-for-expertise/ |
| Publication time | Sun, 13 Sep 2026 04:46:58 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-09-13T05:01:50.323Z |
| Last seen | 2026-09-13T05:01:50.323Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | None |
| Cluster logic | Not yet clustered, or no peer story found in the clustering window. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
AI is breaking our proxies for expertiseMathematicians are broadly not anti-AI. They’re more culturally open to using AI as a tool than, say, artists or writers1. However, now that more and more genuinely prestigious problems have fallen to AI, that might be changing. Almost five thousand mathematicians (including twenty-five Fields medalists) have signed a declaration called A Severe Misaligment of AI in Mathematics. The core argument goes something like this: In recent months, the success of AI in solving major mathematical problems has made headlines even outside mathematical circles. But solving problems is only a tool and proxy for achieving the primary goal of conceptual understanding and insight. Forgetting this in the world of AI may turn the tool against the primary goal.
…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Seangoedecke.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Seangoedecke
