“We've seen in recent months that sort of brute competition between humans and AIs is becoming very counterproductive. People are just racing to dump out a paper three minutes before someone else with an AI is generating almost exactly the same paper and everyone is cutting corners and making the papers harder and harder to read, just because they want the priority. It used to be a very good way to organize our field. But the metric has become way too over-optimized now.”

I believe that will change, especially since now AIs can generate that unit at a press of a button. So first of all, that unit used to be bundled with other valuable things. So traditionally, when a mathematician created a paper, they also created a skilled author who could then give talks about that paper. They could go to conferences, they could interact with other humans, they could train students, and through that, they can discover new connections, new collaborations, new questions to ask. And now we have these AIs that generate the paper, but without all that extra value. So they have unbundled the PDF, you know, the actual physical paper from the penumbra of more social or internal tangible values of that paper. Also, when a human solves a result and writes a paper, it came from first understanding the problem and getting some insights, and that you can communicate. The AI often does not communicate what it learned when it solved the problem. It just gives you the output, but the process is very opaque. So on the one hand, I think papers will evolve to show much more the process. We have focused a bit too much in the past on just showing the finished product. But we've seen it in other disciplines, like movies are enriched when you see behind the…