This is not a reasonable take in 2026. The proofs are valid. You can even check the Jacobian counterexample yourself with pencil and paper.
replyThe counter example, yes.
reply"Some subset of this collection is valid, therefore they all are" is not a valid inference. It's more like what we call "proof by intimidation".
> This is not a reasonable take in 2026.
replyI think it is. Why is it that the only people in any field I'm aware of that think the AI output in their field is high quality are either the ones that are carefully crafting the output themselves or were producing/consuming slop themselves before all this started? (Outsiders pretty uniformly like the output, which is why I drew the parallel to Gell-Mann amnesia.)
The difference here obviously being that the part that you mention is more embedded in the proofs (long and difficult and near-hallucinatory) but the results that matter are that the proofs are correct and validated. So I think you're failing to account for that, the problem for math is that the journey matters less than the destination.
replyHard disagree. If we send someone out exploring and they discover something (maybe?) but their account of their journey is impossible for anyone else to follow and contains obvious hallucinations, what have we gained?
replyIsn't the problem more like they did discover a new land (as in, the proofs are true, and the solutions are validateable) but we have no idea how to make heads or tails of how they discovered it.
reply