This looks like an AI IPO PR powerplay, because at this point the proofs haven't been checked and it may not be possible for a human to check them - because proofs should be clear, not horribly written and noisy.
The noise is suspicious because it's the difference between brute forcing and cognition. A human proof won't just be logically correct, it will be cognitively distilled and coherent. It may still take years to understand it, but the logical flow will be straightforward, not obfuscated.
You want the path through the maze to be as short as possible and the map to be as clear as possible.
This sounds like the opposite. There may be a genuine path through the maze, but if it's too convoluted and takes too long it will be impossible to confirm.
I think the next step is to demand that proofs either be human-scale or they prove that a human-scale proof is impossible and the machine proof is as good as it gets.
I suspect that's possible without tripping over the halting problem. (But I can't prove it.)
Chow, T. Y. (2008). A beginner’s guide to forcing (arXiv:0712.1320). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.0712.1320
> “All mathematicians are familiar with the concept of an open research problem. I propose the less familiar concept of an open exposition problem. Solving an open exposition problem means explaining a mathematical subject in a way that renders it totally perspicuous. Every step should be motivated and clear; ideally, students should feel that they could have arrived at the results themselves. The proofs should be “natural” in Donald Newman’s sense [13]:
> This term . . . is introduced to mean not having any ad hoc constructions or brilliancies. A “natural” proof, then, is one which proves itself, one available to the “common mathematician in the streets.””
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter-universal_Teichmüller_th... seems like a counterpoint, but IANAM. (I am likely cherrypicking the far end of the bell curve re: straightforward here)
In other domains I have seen first hand overwhelming evidence of how things that cause the AI to make mistakes also cause humans to make the same mistakes.
I wonder if the proofs being produced that are hard for humans to interpret are also hard for other LLMs to interpret.
In other words, I wonder if humans are still much better at compressing understanding into proofs than the best LLMs, and what it will take for LLMs to exceed them.
It kind of an explicit example of how the LLMs can be materially less intelligent than people, but still be more productive through scaling, and yet they also can't replace people because they are a categorically different kind of intelligence. It's like all the AI debates compressed into one example showing countwr-intuitive answers.
Also from what I can tell from the few fields I understand, the proofs aren't that long or complicated they are just terribly written.
The entire US federal budget for math research is something like $100M annually. And mathematicians in other countries are hardly making bank either. How does one reconcile how the market has historically valued mathematics with the cash-strapped frontier labs ploughing so much money into that enterprise?
Why should that make a material difference to the IPO? Because of the vibes, and investors are indeed all about the vibes.
> This looks like an AI IPO PR powerplay,
Interestingly, the post has actually also an argument for this:
> Experience has shown that, even now, there will still be people explaining in patronizing tones why none of this is real and none of it counts. If such people were capable of being impressed by anything that happens in the empirical world, of updating on anything, they would’ve already been impressed and already updated several years ago, long before things had reached the point of an actual Mathocalypse.
> So, they’ll say, maybe the alleged solutions are not solutions at all, but just “AI slop.”
There's clear benefit in a babelfish that can coordinate disparate efforts, the only problem with the current iteration is giving credit to said efforts.
Google went quite far down the road to hell, but stopped short of taking credit for websites' content since the company understood that poisoning the well only goes so far. At this point, one can safely conclude that _Chat_GPT was an intentional attempt to squeeze out more data once they mined the internet dry.
Who do we demand this from? The AI companies? Or the mathematicians who are worried they will have nothing left to do?
As the old saying: great claims require great evidence.
Developers and people in CS in general seem to have gotten used to the idea that most productive SWEs don't need to exactly know how to produce assembly or trace every branch prediction or even most of the optimization the CPU (or even their compiler) is running. Mathematicians will get there.
Meanwhile you can use the model to help you out as Scott comments "Just now, however, Dana tells me that she’s been asking Astra all day to explain the new proof of the UGC to her and it’s been doing an amazing job and she’s starting to understand the construction."
It's worthy of note that most humans, do not find most mathematicians understandable. As is frequently demonstrated in Calculus classes. Therefore it is arguable that even human produced results are not generally human understandable.
This basically describes every single PR at work for the past year. Diffs of 10k+ paragraphs of comments saying nothing. Just rubber stamp and move on, nothing else you can do.
Why would anyone believe this (also) is not simply example N+1 of this is the worst it will ever be, as opposed to recognizing this as what will almost certainly prove to be an awkward moment, soon to be replaced by another order of magnitude of cleaner, clearer, more intelligible, etc.?
Ximm's Law: every critique of AI assumes to some degree that contemporary implementations will not, or cannot, be improved upon.
I don't think anyone is saying it can't or won't get better, but the question is how much better, on what timescale, and are there fundamental parts of the problem which will remain extraordinarily difficult to improve?
The comment I was responding to suggested a guarantee of an "order of magnitude" jump right around the corner. There is no guarantee of this, and if you view doomers as fools for having doubts, then we ought to look upon the folks who are sure of this sort of progress in the same way.
Already the unit distance proof was substantially human-edited (per Thomas Bloom). Then with the ten problems from Astra you started getting the citation issues. Then Navier-Stokes was a rushed 160 pages with barely any citations, and some of the related papers were called (by their "authors") the ugliest mess they've ever seen.
And now here we are. At least it seems that mathematical ability and communication with a mathematical audience are independent skills, and progress in the first does not imply the second.
This doesn't surprise me much, given two analogies: 1) many smart people are nonetheless horrible lecturers. (You can't quite get the opposite extreme, since to explain math well you have to be able to do it.) 2) AI writing in general hasn't improved. The models have annoying verbal tics ("honestly") and have no sense of which part of what they say is obvious and which is relevant.