A letter to mathematics and computer science colleagues

Dear Colleagues,

Very recently I wrote to a few friends saying that I expected ChatGPT in its next version becoming able to solve every algebra and calculus problem in A Level (the end of school exams in England) and similar school exams in other countries. For that, ChatGPT simply should be shown how to identify what looks as an algebraic, logarithmic, differential etc. equation or a system of equations or inequalities and plug this thing into one of already existing maths problems solvers, for example, the Universal Math Solver, https://universalmathsolver.com/ — it does more than finding an answer, it produces a complete step-by-step write-up of a solution.

But this important symbolic threshold was passed much earlier than I expected. Conrad Wolfram posted on his blog on 23 March an announcement “Game Over for Maths A-level”, https://www.conradwolfram.com/writings/game-over-for-maths-a-level. A quote:

“The combination of ChatGPT with its Wolfram plug-in just scored 96% in a UK Maths A-level paper, the exam taken at the end of school, as a crucial metric for university entrance. (That compares to 43% for ChatGPT alone).”

This means that undergraduate pre-Calculus and Calculus undergraduate exams will follow quickly.
I think it is dangerous to sit and wait while we are overrun by events. I suggest that we have to address the issues on the global scale: changes in the technological and socio-economic environments of education will soon affect hundreds of millions of children in dozens of countries and later become truly global. It is the scale of the problem which is the issue.

There is nothing special in the ChatGPT, it is only one of a dozen AI systems of enhanced functionality which have suddenly appeared on the market. They are pushed by some of the mightiest transnational corporations to the market where, unlike many other markets, the rules of the supply-side economics apply in their full strength (remember the story of iPod? Or selfie sticks?). It does not matter, what we think and feel about the AI: very soon, it will be everywhere around us. It was Marx who said “supply takes demand, if necessary, by force”. A classical example, which is likely to be reproduced in the case of AI, is the multibillion pet food industry: the concept of pet food was invented and forced on people (now called, in TV commercials, “pet parents”) in the late 1950s by the American meat packing industry which by that time completely saturated the American market (for human consumption) and looked for new directions to expand. For billions of people around the globe, AI will become an intellectual pet food for the masses. And we have to take into account that the supply-side push of the AI on people, is likely to be a total assault, in all spheres of human activity, much wider than education.

In many countries, politicians, state bureaucrats, theoreticians of mathematics education, and school teachers led by them, made everything possible to turn students into a kind of biorobots trained for passing school exams. And here comes the moment of truth: if real robots pass exams with much better marks — what is the purpose of the current model of mathematics education?

And we should not be distracted by general philosophical questions of the kind “can machine learning produce sentient beings?” The real, and immediate issue, is the disruption which will be caused by still non-sentient AI in the human society (made of sentient beings).

It is interesting to glimpse a politician’s view of these issues. Please see below some examples of uses of mathematics as given by Rishi Sunak, Prime Minister of the UK, in his speech on improving attainment in mathematics, 17 April 2023, https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-improving-attainment-in-mathematics-17-april-2023 . Interestingly, the speech was given at the London Screen Academy – this is why examples start with “visual effects”, etc.

You can’t make visual effects without vectors and matrices.

You can’t design a set without some geometry.

You can’t run a production company without being financially literate.

And that’s not just true of our creative industries. It’s true of so many of our industries.

In healthcare, maths allows you to calculate dosages.

In retail, data skills allow you to analyse sales and calculate discounts.

And the same is true in all our daily lives…

… from managing household budgets to understanding mobile phone contracts or mortgages.

With a possible exception of the first line (about visual effects¹), all that in 5 (or at most 10) years from now will be done by a combination of AI and specialist mathematics (or maybe accounting) tools — and done much better than 90% of people can do. For example, an app on a smartphone which has access to all financials accounts of the owner – bank accounts, credit cards, tax account, mortgage, etc. and linked to powerful AI servers on the Internet, will be able to take care of household budgets. This app will ask the user, after each contactless payment in the shop, under which heading this payment should be entered in the ledger of the household budget, offering most likely options (maybe deducing them from the shops’ names, like Mothercare or Bargain Booze).

It is widely accepted now that in most areas of human activity ChatGPT and other AI systems are no more than imposters faking answers to questions they do not understand.

However, routine mathematical by their nature tasks of household budgeting, etc. are likely to be important exceptions — because they are intrinsically well structured and less ambiguous. And AI paired with mathematical problem solving software will pass standard school exams better than students or their teachers can do.

I summarise the situation in three bullet points:

• What we see now is a slow motion car crash of the traditional model of mathematics education. Sunak (and practically everyone in the area of education policy) are asleep at the wheel and do not see the road ahead. But in the education policy, we have to look at least 14 years ahead – this is the length of school education (in the UK), from 4 to 18 years of age.
• Most politicians are able to think ahead only on the time scale of the election cycle, 4 or 5 years. They cannot comprehend the scale of quantities and magnitudes (the latter include time) involved in economic and social problems (and even less so in all the mess around the climate change).
• Most politicians lack basic skills of project management and do not understand that work on a serious project should start with the step-by-step reverse planning from the target to the present position.

This why I appeal to professional mathematicians and computer scientists:

Of all people involved in some way in mathematics /computer science education, you are perhaps the only ones free from mental handicaps listed in the three bullet points above. Let us discuss, at first perhaps only in our circle, this fundamental question:

What kind of mathematics education is needed in the era of AI?

Perhaps we have to split the question:

What kind of mathematics should be taught

(a) To future developers, controllers, masters of AI?

(b) To the general public, the users (and perhaps victims) of AI?

If these questions are not answered in our professional communities, we should not expect an answer coming from elsewhere.

Alexandre Borovik

18 April 2023

http://www.borovik.net/selecta

My answer on Quora to the question Are mathematicians gifted people?

I do not know for which my sins Quora bombards me with questions about giftedness, IQ, etc. For several years I tried to ignore them, but finally I realised that I have to formulate my position.

Yes, professional mathematicians possess some mental traits and skills which majority of population do not have. But these traits are not what is called “gift”, “talent”, “ability” in the mass culture; they remained unnoticed, unregistered in the public discourse about mathematics and mathematics education. However, my mathematician friends, when we discuss this topic, know what I am talking about.

IQ is mostly irrelevant to discussion of mathematical “ability”; specific traits of mathematical thinking belong to a much higher cognitive level than skills tested in IQ tests.

A simple example: I had seen once how an eight years old boy was solving some standard puzzle (not of IQ type), with some pattern of hexagons which had to be filled with integers from 0 to 9 so that certain sums were equal — you perhaps had seen this boring stuff . At some point he paused and commented: “Hmm, I have to somehow move information from this corner to that corner”. Moreover, after some thought he had successfully moved the information. This was meta-thinking, ability to reflect on one’s thinking, ability to look at the problem from above. This boy now is quite a successful student in one of the best university mathematics departments in the world, in a pipeline to becoming a professional research mathematician.

Perhaps you have heard this definition:

“Mathematics is the science of patterns”.

IQ tests pay much attention to the speed of pattern recognition. It is a useful skill, but it is not a sign of mathematical abilities. In my life, I had a chance to see a lot of children and teenagers who had an instinct (or maybe it was a trait absorbed in the family?), to look deeper and try to detect the structure behind the pattern — and the boy mentioned above was one of them. Indeed, the simplest description of mathematics is

“Mathematics is the science of structures behind patterns”.

Perhaps my personal experience is outdated, but I was privileged to go through a viciously academically selective system of mathematics education — see my paper “Free Maths Schools”: some international parallels. Aged 14, at a Summer School which was the final step of selection to the specialist boarding school described in the paper, I and my friends were subjected to a battery of IQ tests — which, however, had no relation to admission to the school.

We were tested by professional experimental psychologists who were commissioned by the Soviet Army to study and assess reliability of the IQ tests used by the US Army for assignment of conscripts to particular duties (you see how long ago it was). The psychologists translated real American IQ tests into Russian and tried them on various groups of population. They were excited to discover that our performance refuted a claim that apparently was universally accepted at that time: that practicing IT tests could not improve results.

Indeed our results were quickly improving beyond applicability of tables for conversion of counts of correct answers into IQ scores. Why? Because we did not practice IQ tests — we had access only to tests which we have already taken — but, after every test, we spent hours classifying test questions, analysing them, inventing our own questions and challenging each other to solve them, and we did that in a collective discussion, in brain storming sessions, attacking problems like a pack of enthusiastic young wolves. Perhaps we had already had some specific habits of mathematicians; but there was nothing special about that, even some 8 year old kids might have them, as I have already said.

As I explain in my paper that I mentioned above, in the selection process for my mathematics boarding school, and in the school itself, the use of words gifted, talented, able was explicitly forbidden — they were seen as misleading and divisive.

I am a staunch believer that majority (maybe even all) kids have strong potential for understanding and mastering mathematics. Unfortunately, their mathematical traits are systematically suppressed in the mainstream school mathematics education — mostly because many teacher have no idea what it is about.

You may wish to take a look at my papers, they say more:

A. V. Borovik,  Mathematics for makers and mathematics for users, in Humanizing Mathematics and its Philosophy: Essays Celebrating the 90th Birthday of Reuben Hersh (B. Sriraman ed.), Birkhauser, 2017, pp. 309–327.

A. V . Borovik and A. D. Gardiner, Mathematical abilities and mathematical skills, The De Morgan Journal 2 no. 2 (2012) 75-86.

My answer to a question in Quora: What is exact definition of mathematics?

I share my small collection of  descriptions of mathematics; some of them sound as attempts to define mathematics.

I. Mathematics is an exact language for description, calculation, deduction, modeling, and prediction — more a systematic way of thinking than a set of rules.

II. Using a legal analogy, mathematics is a language for writing contracts with Nature that Nature accepts as legally binding.

III. The practical importance of mathematics lies in its ability to describe the real world.

The real world consists of what matters. The word “matter” as a noun is used for what the physical world is made of. But if we ask, “What’s the matter with Anne?” we may be asking about a physical ailment, or we may be asking about an idea that is causing Anne to behave strangely. Ideas matter.

The whole point of mathematical education is to make ideas real for students, ideas that were not real for them before. Ideas like fractions, for example. The fact that 2/3 is smaller than 3/4 matters in the real world.

IV. Mathematically educated people are stem cells of a technologically advanced society. Because of the universality of mathematics, mathematicians and well educated users of mathematics are flexible in applying and inventing tools for work in technological environments which never existed before

V. Learning mathematics involves the profound assimilation of intellectual and aesthetic criteria as well as practically orientated ones. The very difficulty in learning mathematics makes it a personality-enhancing experience.

[The above are borrowings from David Corfield, Tony Gardiner, Michael Gromov, Frank Quinn, David Pierce — I do not remember now in which order.]

VI. Mathematics is a part of physics. Physics is an experimental science, a part of natural science. Mathematics is the part of physics where experiments are cheap. — Vladimir Arnold

VII. Mathematics is the music of reason  — James Joseph Sylvester

VIII.  Mathematics is the study of mental objects with reproducible properties. — Philip J Davis and Reuben Hersh

VIII. Finally, my own extension of the thesis by Davis and Hersh:

Mathematics the study of mental constructs with reproducible properties which imitates the causality structures of the physical universe but is expressed in the human language which evolved for social interactions.

My answer to a question on Quora:

Why is math taught differently in school today? What is wrong with the way we learned it twenty years ago?

New technological and economic environment requires a different set of mathematical skills, and taught differently, and — this is the big unmentionable — taught to much smaller number of students. What we see are death throes of the existing system of mathematics education. Politicians are keen to keep the old system of mathematics education for everyone, and for good reason — this is what their electorate expects from them.

This is why there is so much confusion of what, and now, has to be taught at school – in absence of clear economic criteria, anything goes. I heard statements, made by professional mathematics educationalist at meetings at the Department of Education, of the kind: “Why school curriculum should contain fractions? Who of people present here had lately add 3/4 and 7/5? Read more in my papers Mathematics for makers and mathematics for users and Calling a spade a spade: Mathematics in the new pattern of division of labour.

My answer to a question on Quora: Why is school 8 hours long?

Admittedly it was in primordial times, but, in my country, at my time at primary school (7 to 11 years old), school day was 4 lessons of 45 minutes long, with two breaks of 10 minutes and one break of 25 minutes in between, from 8:30 to 12:30 in the morning. There was some homework, but not very taxing. A plenty of time was free for whatever children wished to occupy themselves with. Parents were at work until 17:00.

A short school day is actually a physiological norm. Why in the UK, say, school day is abnormally long? Because it is an offence to leave children alone; the law is vague — The law on leaving your child on their own, but it applies with unnecessary, in my opinion, rigour. Schools are forced to act as storage rooms for children while parents are at work.

Of course, in old times there were risks involved; legs and arms could occasionally be broken while skiing (unsupervised), or playing ice hockey (also unsupervised), etc., but these were very rare events, and were seen as unavoidable and normal risks. There were no modern culture of over-protection which would, of course, cut accidents — but at expense of loss of child’s precious independence. Analysing now my and my friends’ behaviour of that time, I see that we were quite risk aware and knew how to avoid danger — it was a normal part of growing up.

My answer to a question on Quora: How many years could it take me to study and understand all the mathematics fields that exist so far?

If you mean understanding at the level of ability to do research work in every field of mathematics, then, I am afraid, there is no hope to achieve this goal. Mathematics expands, and the cutting edge of mathematical research moves further and further away from any fixed reference point, say, undergraduate mathematics. From the point of view of an aspiring PhD student, mathematics looks like New York in the Capek Brothers’ book  A Long Cat Tale:

And New York – well, houses there are so tall that they can’t even finish building them. Before the bricklayers and tilers climb up them on their ladders, it is noon, so they eat their lunches and start climbing down again to be in their beds by bedtime. And so it goes on day after day.

It was written in the first half of the 20th century, but Joseph and Karel Capek understood thing or two about futurology (although the term “futurology”, most likely, did not exist in their time): they were the people who coined the word “robot”. We live in the world where, in almost every field of human endeavour, no-one can understand everything. The human civilization that we transform and build is immensely complex, and mathematics is perhaps its most complex part.

[For this post, I cannibalized some bits of my paper Mathematics for makers and mathematics for users; it discusses some relevant themes.]

The famous geneticist James Watson, of the double helix fame, about his relations with mathematics:

All through my undergraduate days I worried that my limited mathematical talents might keep me from being more than a naturalist.  In deciding to go for the gene, whose essence was surely in its molecular properties, there seemed no choice but to tackle my weakness head-on.  Not only was math at the heart of virtually all physics, but the forces at work in three-dimensional ;molecular structures could not be described except with math. Only by taking  higher math courses would I develop sufficient comfort to work at the leading edge of my field, even if I never got near the leading edge of math.  And so my Bs in two genuinely tough math courses were worth far more in confidence capital than any   I would likely have received in a biology course, no matter ;how demanding.  Though I would never use the full extent of the analytical methods I had learned, the Poisson distribution analyses needed to do most phage experiments soon became satisfying instead of a source of crippling anxiety. [From J. D. Watson, Avoid Boring People , Vintage Books, New York, 2010, p. 51]

My answer to a Quora question:

What’s something about math that still amazes you, even after knowing it for a long time?

That mathematics is consistent: regardless of how long and complicated are proofs, everything miraculously gets worked out without contradiction.

Mathematics is an ideal world; what strikes is its stability. You may revisit some its corner after being away for 30 years, and discover that everything there is the same as it was when you left it.

I am obsessed with stories of how people learn, and of their motivation for learning.

This is Dr Brian May, and his personal story that appears to be unbelievable: the interesting bit is  2”07 – 3”32 of the BBC film. Aged 7, Brian May got obsessed with stereo photography and very soon started to produce his own stereopictures.

By the time he joined Queen, he was doing PhD in Astrophysics (he formally defended his PhD only years later).

Well, the story is quite believable to me. Once upon a time I knew a boy who, at age 14, was repairing TV sets (primordial by modern standards, black and white, vacuum tube) for all his neighbours in a small provincial town. This job required an oscilloscope; he made one from his family’s TV set by adding an additional circuit and a switch between the two modes of operation: as a normal TV set and as an oscilloscope. In later life, he became a guru and wizard of the black art of fine-tuning of accelerators of elementary particles and was in charge of one of the biggest one in the world.

And, of course, there was Richard Feynman who, as a boy, famously “Fixed radios by thinking“.

Back to Brian May: his PhD thesis is published, and the preface contains this passage:

“I inherited a Fabry-Perot spectrometer and pulse-counting equipment from Prof. Ring, and spent 18 months entirely rebuilding and updating both the optics and electronics, in preparation for obtaining essentially first viable set of radial velocity measuremnents, all around the elcliptic, of the Zodiac Light. The writing of my thesis was virtually complete in 2006, but the submission was deferred due to various pressures.”

It is easy to believe that May, as the lead guitarist of Queen, did not have the same issues with scales of measurement as Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap famously had:

This goes to 11…  [watch from 1”16].

My answer to a question in Quora:

Who was a notable person that was originally evil, but eventually regretted their evil and became good later on?

One of more obvious answers is St Paul the Apostle (or Saul, how he was known prior to his inversion on the road to Damascus).  Acts 9:1–6 KJV say:

[1] And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
[2] And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem.
[3] And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven:
[4] And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
[5] And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
[6] And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do.

There are conflicting interpretations of this episode, but, in any case, Paul was a changed person since then. An evil man would not write in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 KJV :

[4] Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up,
[5] Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil;
[6] Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
[7] Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things.