Rendered at 04:48:05 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
matt3210 11 hours ago [-]
It might have proved it, but the higher level of understanding which was expected from the process is not there, so there is no benefit.
nomel 5 hours ago [-]
Is that a requirement though? If the AI used existing understanding/methods (which I assume it did) then there's nothing really "new" there, right? Shouldn't it be possible to get understanding from how the existing methods were used? Or, even knowing it's true, cull an incredible number of paths from the problem space around it, to make finding understanding easier?
I'm not a mathematician, but I've always been able to find understandings from exploring the paths starting from either direction of the conceptual graph that exists between a "problem" and a "solution".
benoq 1 hours ago [-]
Not to any great extent.
It’s the equivalent of unrolling a loop into a series of individual linear statements. You’ll never derive monadic forms from that. It requires a far greater intelligence to think that up. As nature can’t speak our language, we have to rely on the stupidity of humans instead to help discover its beauty. So we are stuck with mathematicians.
People, mathematicians, of course care about answers. But they deeply care about how those answers were derived and they’ll duel if they find a given thing looks ugly. People have invented entire fields because shit didn’t look right or left gaps in reasoning or understanding. Take quaternions. Take calculus.
AIs aren’t super intelligent and these grifters and charlatans need to be laughed out of the room.
It is unfortunate to see what happened to terry tao but not at all surprising. He endorsed the snake early on thinking the snake was a friend. It was only a question of time before it would turn on him to bite him.
T-A 7 hours ago [-]
Third paragraph from the end of TFA:
Mathematicians are both frustrated and excited by OpenAI’s work. Sarnak, for his part, said in an email that he won’t be satisfied that it’s “a Theorem” until humans check and understand all the details. But “the general feeling is one of relief,” Radziwiłł said. There are scores of results across not just number theory but also geometry and theoretical computer science that the proofs of quasi-Riemann will, in a swift stroke, establish as mathematical truths.
mrkn1 8 hours ago [-]
7/8 result is already Lean-verified, yet experts are spending their time on the unverified 11/12 paper because it’s shorter and the only one a human edited
rafaelRiv 2 hours ago [-]
The fact that a piece of software compiles does not necessarily mean that it is correct. The same applies to Lean; in fact, some type theorists are not particularly satisfied with the current state of Lean or the direction in which it is heading.
I'm not a mathematician, but I've always been able to find understandings from exploring the paths starting from either direction of the conceptual graph that exists between a "problem" and a "solution".
It’s the equivalent of unrolling a loop into a series of individual linear statements. You’ll never derive monadic forms from that. It requires a far greater intelligence to think that up. As nature can’t speak our language, we have to rely on the stupidity of humans instead to help discover its beauty. So we are stuck with mathematicians.
People, mathematicians, of course care about answers. But they deeply care about how those answers were derived and they’ll duel if they find a given thing looks ugly. People have invented entire fields because shit didn’t look right or left gaps in reasoning or understanding. Take quaternions. Take calculus.
AIs aren’t super intelligent and these grifters and charlatans need to be laughed out of the room.
It is unfortunate to see what happened to terry tao but not at all surprising. He endorsed the snake early on thinking the snake was a friend. It was only a question of time before it would turn on him to bite him.
Mathematicians are both frustrated and excited by OpenAI’s work. Sarnak, for his part, said in an email that he won’t be satisfied that it’s “a Theorem” until humans check and understand all the details. But “the general feeling is one of relief,” Radziwiłł said. There are scores of results across not just number theory but also geometry and theoretical computer science that the proofs of quasi-Riemann will, in a swift stroke, establish as mathematical truths.