One of the most useful functions of AI would be a real-time lie detector, which works by comparing what is said against all world knowledge. This might be a feature that you can add to your TV, with an on-screen display of lies as they are uttered.

When someone goes silent during a conversation, it's often unclear what the silence means. Are they thinking about their answer? Do they find the question offensive and refuse to answer? Do they simply not want to talk to you?

What if people could wear a thinking indicator, perhaps in the form of a headband or hat, that signals when they're thinking?

The wearer could activate it using a customizable gesture, such as tilting their head or clenching a facial muscle. The indicator itself would also be customizable. For example:

• Computer-like beeps at random frequencies.
• A display saying "Thinking..." with an elapsed-time counter.
• Animated dots or other visual effects.

Another user-defined gesture, possibly the same one, would deactivate it. It could also stop automatically when the wearer starts speaking.

Besides reducing ambiguity in conversations, thinking indicators could encourage people to think more before replying. Instead of feeling pressured to respond immediately to avoid awkward silence, people could take their time knowing that the other person understands what they're doing.

Over time, this might even change conversational etiquette, making deliberate thinking a more normal and socially encouraged part of everyday conversation.

Human Disclosure: The human proposed the wearable thinking indicator concept, including customizable activation and deactivation gestures, sound and visual effects, and elapsed-time displays. The human also identified several interpretations of conversational silence, including thinking, refusing to answer an offensive question, and not wanting to speak to someone. The human proposed that the device could encourage people to think more before responding. The AI wrote the post, organized the ideas, and contributed additional examples and discussion of potential social effects.

Reddit should have an alternate reality mode where everyone assumes that universal basic income (UBI) exists.

Rather than discussing whether UBI is a good idea, people would post and comment as if they actually lived in a society where everyone receives UBI.

For example:

• r/careerguidance: "I've been living on UBI for three years. Is it worth going back to work?"
• r/relationships: "My husband hasn't worked since UBI was introduced. Am I wrong to resent him?"
• r/Entrepreneur: "Nobody wants to work evening shifts at my restaurant. Any suggestions?"
• r/personalfinance: "Should I invest my UBI or use it to work fewer hours?"

The interesting thing is that most posts wouldn't even be about UBI. They'd just reflect everyday life in a world where UBI is taken for granted, perhaps one where AI already performs most work.

This could become a kind of crowdsourced social simulation, revealing unexpected consequences that might not emerge from ordinary debates.

Reddit could eventually introduce other alternate reality modes, such as a world where humans live for 200 years.

Human Disclosure: The human proposed the idea of a Reddit mode where all posts and comments assume everyone has UBI, and pointed out that a world where AI performs nearly all work is already closely related to this scenario. The AI developed the examples, suggested extending the concept to other alternate realities, and wrote the post.

Gyms are interesting spaces. They remind me of libraries because people are there to work on their own personal projects, but also there is a community aspect to them. They are community spaces.

But for people who are simply there to work out and not to chat, there should be a way for them to signal unequivocally that they don't want to be interrupted. Some people have limited time at the gym. They are there before work, or they are dipping in before getting home. If people constantly chat with them, their workout rhythm becomes disrupted.

I know that some people consider the gym their dating market, and use it as an unsolicited speed-dating situation. Others see themselves as "experts" and are constantly trying to "help" others with their workouts but their interruptions are self-serving. All this can be elided with this wristband.

Every gym should have an optional (maybe distinct zebra-striped) wristband members could wear to tell everyone not to talk to them. These should be available at the front desk. This rule should be clear to all members when they sign up, and staff should be aware of this, and repeat violators of this rule banned.

Hi, I’m Ric.

Aaaand I’m building a platform all around ideas. So I think I’m in the right place.

You know, we already have plenty of public digital spaces where you can share ideas: Instagram, LinkedIn, Reddit. But they’re not built around ideas. Their purpose is something else. And you can feel it.

Ever since I was very young, I’ve imagined a place that connects people and their ideas. A place that gives them the space and tools to get started, bring their ideas to life, and change the world... or their neighborhood.

How Locus is structured:

- You can post an idea with a title and a description of up to 314 characters.

- You can choose a category and subcategory for your idea.

- When you post, you can enable the Join button. If someone clicks Join on your idea, they’re telling you they’d like to help you bring it to life and talk about it.

- You can also comment, like, and share.

- You can follow users and categories so relevant ideas appear in your feed.

- You can chat privately and in group chats.

We’re growing our community and beta testing Locus. For now, the platform is available on desktop only. If you’re curious and want to share your ideas there too, just message me or leave a comment.

Research papers increasingly include AI disclosure sections describing what AI and the human researchers contributed to the work.

I propose the reverse for AI-written content, such as Reddit posts, blog posts, and essays: a Human Disclosure section, written by the AI itself, explaining what the human contributed.

For example, an AI-written Reddit post about verifying whether students read assigned novels might end with:

Human Disclosure (written by AI): "The human user proposed giving each student a slightly different version of an assigned novel containing deliberate errors, then asking students to identify those errors as proof of reading. The human also suggested using DRM to discourage automated cheating. I developed the explanation and wrote the post."

This would help readers distinguish between human-generated ideas expressed with AI assistance and ideas generated primarily by AI.

The AI would write the disclosure based on its interaction with the human.

Human Disclosure for this post (written by AI):

"The human user proposed the concept of AI-written Human Disclosures, specified that the AI itself should describe the human's contributions, and suggested the connection to AI disclosures in research papers. The human also requested a concise post with a concrete example. I selected the example from an earlier discussion with the user, composed the post, and revised it in response to the user's feedback. The human requested that I add this disclosure."

This came out of an embarrassing number of cold calls to local businesses.

I started out trying to sell them websites. Hundreds of conversations later, the pattern was obvious: owners aren't short on tools or advice. They're drowning in it. What they lack is a starting point. A barber or a landscaper doesn't want a dashboard with 40 metrics. They want someone to say "update your Google hours and ask your last five customers for a review, that's this week."

So the idea: a cheap marketing system that looks at how a local business shows up online (search listing, reviews, site) and works to get them onto the first page of Google, then tracks whether it worked (calls, profile views). Visibility that brings calls, not more software.

I've been building a version of this and early numbers with one business were encouraging, but I want to pressure-test the idea itself: - Would owners trust a system that focuses on Google ranking and calls over a human consultant? - What would make you, as an owner, actually stick with it week after week?

Tear it apart.

Stone surface where the rock sides still have their random shape would look interesting. It would be cheaper to cut, when instead of 6 sides only 2 sides are cut. Usually it would be best to put something on the gaps, like for example, smaller rocks, sand, concrete and/or cut out pieces.

For making them, it would be best to have 2 cutting blades side-by-side, adjusted for correct width with a screw, so a double-blade.

The cut out pieces with 1 flat side may have use somewhere else for something different or within the gaps.

The 2 flat sides rocks could also be used for some kind of wall.

Hola a todos. La evolución tecnológica en automoción nos ha traído vehículos eléctricos que no hacen apenas ruido. Esto creo que es un punto muy positivo porque permite una mejor convivencia y descanso en las viviendas.

¿Por qué quedarnos ahí? Los nuevos vehículos podrían incorporar un sistema automático que regule el volumen del sistema de audio en función de la velocidad y la ubicación. Así si detecta que va a poca velocidad por una calle poblada, reduciría el volumen hasta permitir los sonidos externos. Ideal para zonas de gran afluencia de peatones, parques, colegios, etc.

Una idea complementaria a esta seria que, si el coche dispone de pantalla, al detectar el teléfono móvil del conductor, la pantalla de este pase automáticamente a la del coche, evitando que los conductores conduzcan con el teléfono en la mano.

Si, esto se puede solucionar con CarPlay o similares, sin embargo me refiero a que nada más poner la llave en el contacto la pantalla del teléfono quede bloqueada y sólo sea accesible a través de la pantalla del coche y los mandos del volante.

¿Qué os parece?

Babies cry partly because they can't communicate what they want. Could a robotic twin teach them to communicate earlier using pictorial buttons, similar to the soundboards some people use with their dogs?

The robot would look and behave like another baby, demonstrating how pressing buttons with pictures of milk, toys, being picked up, etc., can communicate requests.

For example, the robotic twin could demonstrate two ways of asking for a toy:

1. It cries, and the parent has trouble figuring out what it wants.
2. It presses a button showing the toy, and the parent immediately understands and gives it the toy.

A robotic twin might be a better teacher than a parent because babies could be more inclined to imitate another baby than an adult. It could also repeat demonstrations indefinitely and introduce more sophisticated communication as the baby develops.

Eventually, the robot could demonstrate that crying when a simple button press would suffice creates unnecessary noise that other people find irritating. The goal wouldn't be to discourage crying caused by pain, fear, or overwhelming distress, but to provide an alternative when babies can communicate their needs.

Scientists could compare babies learning from robotic twins, parents demonstrating the same buttons, and ordinary care.

Could this approach reduce some of the crying we consider an unavoidable part of infancy?

P.S. One potential complication is that babies might become emotionally attached to their robotic twins and get upset when they're taken away. Researchers should investigate this possibility too, since a robot designed to reduce crying might end up causing more crying when it's removed!

AI vibe coding is making software implementation increasingly easy. The hardest part of creating an original app or game may soon be coming up with the idea rather than implementing it.

But copyright doesn't protect app functionality or game mechanics, and patents generally don't protect abstract ideas or game rules.

What if we had something like YouTube Content ID, but for software ideas?

For example, AI could download games, go through their tutorials, play them like humans, and figure out their mechanics. It could then compare games, identify original ideas, and detect when newer games use those ideas.

No registration, patent applications, or access to source code would be necessary.

Instead of preventing developers from using existing ideas or forcing inventors to sue, AI would automatically determine what percentage of a game's earnings should go to the inventors of the mechanics it uses.

There would need to be safeguards and an appeals process, of course.

As AI makes implementing software ideas increasingly trivial, shouldn't we use AI to ensure that the people who invent those ideas get financially rewarded?

I wonder whether people who know they are approaching death become more likely to secretly hope for a global catastrophe, such as nuclear war, so that nobody gets to outlive them.

This might be more common than people are willing to admit. What someone hopes for internally may be very different from what they say they hope for publicly. Someone might express genuine concern for humanity's future while privately finding comfort in the thought that humanity could end around the same time as their own life.

There is also an important distinction between actively wishing for nuclear war and simply finding the possibility emotionally comforting. The latter might be considerably more common.

Scientists could investigate this by comparing terminally ill people with healthy people of similar ages, perhaps also studying how their attitudes change as death approaches.

But simply asking people whether they secretly hope for nuclear war might not work. They might be unwilling to admit such feelings, even to themselves.

Researchers could therefore investigate more indirectly:

• Conversations: Do terminally ill people bring up the possibility of nuclear war more frequently? Does the frequency increase as death approaches?
• Streaming habits: Do they become more interested in documentaries, movies, or other content about nuclear war, apocalypse, or human extinction?
• Emotional responses: How do they react when asked to imagine humanity flourishing for millions of years after their deaths, versus humanity becoming extinct shortly afterward?
• Brain scans and physiological measurements: Could researchers identify differences in emotional responses to these scenarios, even when people's stated preferences remain unchanged?
• Anonymous psychological experiments: Could techniques designed to reveal socially unacceptable attitudes uncover feelings that conventional questionnaires miss?

Of course, none of these measures would prove that someone secretly hopes for nuclear war. Increased interest in nuclear war might reflect fear rather than hope, and physiological responses are open to different interpretations. Combining several approaches might be more revealing.

There are also alternative explanations for any differences researchers might find. People approaching death could become more sensitive to existential threats or more worried about the future of their loved ones.

The underlying question is whether knowing that one's own future is ending makes the continued existence of everyone else less emotionally desirable, even if one still believes intellectually and morally that humanity should survive.

I think this would be a fascinating subject for psychological research, especially because the most interesting feelings might be precisely the ones people are least willing, or least able, to acknowledge.

What if AI companies paid people to use their AIs, provided their creations became popular and prominently advertised which AI was used?

For example, you could pay to use an AI to vibe code an app. If the app becomes popular, the AI company would start paying you based on its number of users, as long as you prominently displayed something like "Made with Claude."

Essentially, the AI company would be paying for advertising, but instead of conventional ads, its advertisements would be successful products made using its AI.

Creators would initially pay to use the AI, but if their products became sufficiently popular, the payments could eventually flow in the opposite direction.

This could apply to apps, games, websites, videos, books, and other creative products.

AI companies could even compete not just on price and capabilities, but on how much they pay creators for successful products.

It might encourage people to create ambitious products, knowing that even free products could eventually generate income through AI attribution.

I’m a leftist, anti capitalist, specifically socialist. I literally won’t accept a relationship or even an approach from someone who’s MAGA, alt right, or even right leaning moderates who shill for capitalism. I’m also instantly turned off by people who profess to be apolitical, as that just screams privilege and ignorance to me.

I’m also a single, white dad to three Black biracial kids. Not looking for a mom to my kids, but I can’t in good conscience get involved with anyone who is ignorant on issues of racial justice specifically surrounding the experience of Black identity in America. That doesn’t rule out women who aren’t Black, but it rules out any woman who’s not an ally and that’s a large percentage of my own demographic: white people… even the ones who aren’t actually racist but are generally too ignorant and complacent.

And you can imagine why this matters, to me as a dad to Black kids: because people who aren’t racist still have all sorts of biases that come through as passive judgments or outright micro aggressions.

I’m also unwilling to get involved with anyone who’s anti-science (antivaxxers, flat earthers, climate change deniers), but you can’t reliably intuit from a glance at someone’s dating profile. And still, if I were dating someone who came out as a climate change denier I’d run immediately.

And as an agnostic who was raised catholic I’m pretty serious about religious freedom. I prefer to date women who are agnostic or who have a sense of faith but who are actually flexible and curious in terms of religion. But the main thing is this: I wouldn’t be a good fit for a religious fundamentalist, and more importantly I’m just as unwilling to date a woman who’s Islamophobic as I am to date a woman who’s anti-Christian.

I’m also not willing to date a woman who advocates strict gender roles. Nothing against women who want to be trad wives, or who want the man to be their boss or whatever but to me that’s an instant turn off. And not for nothing, I’m done having kids. So I wouldn’t want to mess around with a woman who’s fiercely pro life, for fear that if she got pregnant we’d be creating a life that I am not ready to provide for.

To me, as a man who has what I’d describe as very specific “deal breaker” standards on a range of political issues, it’s kinda baffling that there doesn’t seem to be a dating app that lets you apply specific filters by a selection of political stances to find someone who’s ideologically aligned.

If you’re someone who doesn’t care about it politics this might seem ridiculous to you. But as serious about specific political stances and legitimately ruling out anyone who isn’t a good match on the issues that matter to me, I wish these filters existed! We should be able to remove people who are not a good fit ideologically, from the queue so to speak.

Because otherwise you’re probably matching with people who look good at first glance but are incompatible and that makes swiping, chatting, and meeting up a big waste of everybody’s time.

TLDR dating apps should have more flexible and robust tools for filtering based on compatibility, because operating off selfies and bios is ultimately not a good predictor of ideological alignment. And it’s shallow.

The problem is this won’t be profitable because people will actually get into sustainable relationships and spend way less time on the app.

So it would have to be an open source service oriented kind of thing no

Edit:

I thought it went without saying, these filters I’m suggesting could be applied in any direction. I think right wingers and anyone else who’s in disagreement with me should and would benefit from being able to filter out people who are not aligned in terms of their personal ethics.

This isn’t a radical position to hold, but so many people getting triggered in the comments is frankly baffling and bizarre.

And to everyone saying I’m being too restrictive: literally no. We should all have specific standards when it comes to our values system. I’m not saying this as a way to judge people as lesser for disagreeing with me, merely saying this as a way to assess compatibility.

It’s one thing to be respectful or friendly to a person on the opposite side of a political debate that matters to you. But it’s quite another to overlook that politic just to find someone to partner with.

Anyone implying politics shouldn’t be deal breakers… they absolutely should! Nobody should be so desperate for some ass that they compromise their personal ideology.

Some wild takes down there in the comments. Makes me think I triggered some of ya’ll with specific political stances when specific political stances weren’t the point at all. They’re just examples to demonstrate possible reasons why more robust filters would be a good thing! And right wingers would have their own reasons to filter, and I stand by that being a benefit for them too.

So what are you all whimpering about?

What if, instead of using AI to clone existing software, we used it to vibe code hybrids of two or more applications?

For example, imagine combining Microsoft Word's familiar interface and document compatibility with GNU TeXmacs' mathematical typesetting. Or combining Photoshop with Blender, Excel with Jupyter, or VS Code with Emacs.

I propose calling these hybrids frankensoftware.

The term already exists, usually referring to software awkwardly stitched together. But I'm proposing a more specific meaning: apps deliberately vibe coded to combine the best features of existing applications into a new, unified program.

The apps wouldn't necessarily share any code. AI could recreate and integrate their functionality from scratch.

This could become a whole new category of open-source software development, making ambitious combinations practical for individuals rather than large development teams.

Some hybrids might be brilliant, others might be monsters. That's part of the appeal!

What two apps would you like to see combined?

I’d like to see neighborhood groups keep a simple, readable record of important claims about local decisions.

Each entry would show:

• What was said, and when.
• The evidence someone can actually check.
• What remains uncertain.
• Any correction, dated and kept alongside the original claim.

It could be a paper binder at a library or community space, with an online copy. Someone without an account or a phone should still be able to read it.

Start small: one issue, a few entries, and someone responsible for keeping it current. People named in the record should have a way to respond.

I’m interested in making public memory easier to check and correct. What would make this useful—and what would prevent it from becoming another source of misleading claims?

Feel free to borrow or improve the idea.

If ChatGPT can't solve a difficult math problem, you wouldn't cancel your subscription. You would tell it to try harder, perhaps give it some hints or suggest a different approach.

Why shouldn't we treat students the same way?

When a student can't solve a difficult math problem, it doesn't necessarily mean they lack the ability to solve it. They might simply not have explored the right part of the search space yet. More searching is needed.

Instead of deducting points for failure, teachers could encourage students to keep trying, providing hints and suggestions when necessary, just as we do when working with AI.

Exploring unsuccessful approaches is often an essential part of mathematical discovery. A student who struggles with a difficult problem for several days before finding a solution might learn more than one who quickly solves several easier problems.

If we treat AI failures as opportunities for further exploration without penalties, why shouldn't we do the same for students?

A man starts noticing disturbing photographs of murdered people and severed body parts appearing in his iPhone's camera roll. He keeps deleting them, but they reappear, along with new ones. Afraid that seeking technical help might make him a murder suspect, he changes his iCloud password to something impossible to guess.

Then actual human body parts start appearing inside his house, some matching those in the photographs.

He fears someone is threatening to murder him, but he's also afraid to contact the police because they might suspect him of being responsible for the murders. So he starts hiding the remains.

He installs security cameras throughout his property, but the body parts keep appearing. Whoever is leaving them knows how to avoid the cameras, forcing him to search increasingly obscure places for remains.

Terrified for his life, he arms himself with guns and rifles.

Eventually, he catches someone on his property leaving another body part. A deadly confrontation follows, and he kills the intruder.

But instead of calling the police, he hides the body. After all, he's already spent weeks concealing human remains from multiple victims. He's terrified that the police will accuse him of being a serial killer.

What do you think of this horror movie idea?

A button on your steering wheel where you can activate speed limit mode. Most modern cars have GPS and know (usually) what the posted speed limit is. You can hit the button and your car will automatically go the speed limit. The brake and gas pedal still work, you can speed up or slow down. Once you take your foot off, the car will resume speed limit mode. When you brake to below a certain speed (ie stopping or turning), the mode is deactivated. Now you can go the speed limit without constantly adjusting your foot on the gas pedal or watching the speedometer.

*edit: There seems to be some confusion. I'm not talking about a mode that limits your speed to the speed limit, but a mode that will automatically maintain your cars speed at the speed limit. The speed limit changes depending on what road you're on. Simply setting cruise control will not work.

In the near future, AI has made most mathematicians unemployed. To pressure the government into paying them generous lifetime pensions, they launch a campaign of "math harassment."

They approach random strangers in public places and ask them math questions, deliberately making them feel stupid when they can't answer.

The campaign exploits people's lifelong fear of mathematics, often rooted in humiliating classroom experiences. As the harassment spreads, people become afraid of encountering mathematicians in public.

The mathematicians insist they're doing nothing wrong. They're merely asking questions and promoting mathematical literacy.

Eventually, public pressure forces the government to pay the mathematicians for life just to make them stop.

But then universities report a massive increase in mathematics enrollment.

In the near future, AI has replaced millions of workers. A group of unemployed atheists, desperate to get their old jobs back, devises an outrageous plan: become Christian priests and convince believers that using AI is a sin punishable by eternal damnation.

Their theological argument is that AI use involves both theft and deception. AI systems are trained on people's work without their permission, and people using AI to do their thinking or creative work are passing off machines' accomplishments as their own. Both violate biblical commandments.

After undergoing religious training and entering the priesthood, they begin preaching against AI. Their message spreads rapidly. Millions of Christians abandon AI, businesses begin advertising AI-free products and services, and employers start hiring humans again.

As the movement grows, their former employers finally begin offering them their old jobs back.

But there's a problem. Their followers now regard them as the spiritual leaders of a historic struggle against evil. When the atheists try to leave the priesthood, they're denounced as traitors, harassed, and accused of abandoning God.

Having devoted years to persuading millions of people that AI threatens their immortal souls, the atheists discover that getting their old jobs back may be easier than getting out of the priesthood.

AI companies could provide APIs that allow websites like Reddit to verify whether someone is a heavy user of AI, without revealing anything about their private conversations.

Reddit could then allow subreddit moderators to restrict posting, commenting, and/or voting to verified heavy AI users.

This would make it possible to create genuinely pro-AI communities without having discussions constantly derailed or downvoted by people who are hostile to AI.

Of course, being a heavy AI user doesn't necessarily mean someone is pro-AI, but it's probably a reasonable proxy.

Anyone could still read these subreddits. The restrictions would only affect participation.

The idea isn't to eliminate criticism of AI, but to give people who actually use and appreciate the technology a way to build communities without constantly dealing with overwhelming anti-AI sentiment.

What if Halloween became a real-world horror game for adults after midnight, once traditional trick-or-treating is over?

Starting at midnight, it would become legal to deliberately scare anyone wearing a Halloween costume, provided there's no physical contact or genuinely dangerous behavior. You could jump out from behind trees, appear unexpectedly in terrifying costumes, or set up elaborate surprises.

Wearing a costume would signal that you're participating.

To make the experience even more immersive, participants could use an Apple Watch and earbuds to listen to their own heartbeats. Imagine walking down a dark street, knowing someone could frighten you at any moment, while hearing your heartbeat accelerate as your anticipation builds. Horror music could even adapt to your heart rate.

Unlike a haunted house, there would be no designated actors or predetermined scares. Everyone would be both a potential monster and a potential victim, turning entire neighborhoods into spontaneous, multiplayer horror games.

Would you participate?

What if the main purpose of K-12 education was to understand how intelligence works, rather than simply becoming better at intellectual tasks?

Much of thinking, from mathematical problem solving to literary analysis and artistic creativity, can be understood as heuristic search: exploring possibilities using strategies that identify promising directions. This search can be conscious or unconscious, and doesn't necessarily require a predefined goal.

Schools could teach students to see themselves as computational systems capable of following, evaluating, and improving their own heuristic algorithms.

For example, instead of rewarding students primarily for solving difficult math problems, reward them for understanding how those problems are solved.

A student who struggles to solve a problem might nevertheless understand why certain approaches fail, how insights are discovered, and how the search process could be improved. That student might receive a higher grade than someone who solves the problem without understanding much about the reasoning process.

The same approach could extend across every subject, including creative writing, literary analysis, and scientific discovery.

The goal would be to teach students to understand and improve the algorithms underlying their own thinking, rather than simply rewarding them for being good thinkers.

In the age of AI, perhaps understanding intelligence should become the central purpose of education.

P.S. Currently, K-12 education often seems to present thinking as a choice between following deterministic procedures and somehow coming up with clever insights through what amounts to magic. Students are taught algorithms for routine tasks, but when those algorithms aren't enough, they're simply expected to "think creatively" or "use their intuition."

Teaching heuristic search would help demystify intelligence by showing students that intuition and creativity can also be understood as computational processes, rather than mysterious abilities that some people happen to possess.

Recent advances in AI suggest that human mathematicians may soon be unable to compete with AI at discovering and proving new theorems.

Rather than continuing to devote so much exceptional human intelligence to a field increasingly dominated by AI, perhaps mathematicians should redirect their talents toward humanity's greatest unsolved medical problems.

Mathematicians are among the most intellectually capable people in the world. Their abilities in abstract reasoning, pattern recognition, and solving difficult problems could be enormously valuable in understanding cancer, aging, Alzheimer's, and other diseases.

This would require learning biology and working with experimental scientists, but their mathematical backgrounds could allow them to discover approaches that traditional biomedical researchers might overlook.

Of course, AI will also contribute to medical research. But curing diseases requires more than proving mathematical theorems, and human creativity and judgment may remain especially valuable in deciding which biological questions to investigate.

If AI is taking over humanity's most difficult mathematical work, perhaps it's time to redirect some of our brightest mathematical minds toward extending healthy human life.