I think the issue lies partly in not understanding your product yourself, and then handing it off to someone else who has to make sense of it.
replyThe comparison doesn’t work for the music industry, at least. Many hit songs are written and produced on a whim, while people analyze it for years.
Only human can publish the slop, which mean if Tao release something without reviewing, it will be called slop.
replyYes, what I'm saying is some of these proofs may have had essentially zero marginal human effort. Should they not be reviewed at all?
replyReviewing to make sure the proof is correct. Even the proof comes with lean, it could still proof the wrong thing.
replyIn that context, it'd only be slop if Terry published those proofs and asked someone else to do that work.
reply[dead]
replyWell maybe Tao is wrong and we should instead focus on making LLMs explain their ideas better. It really seems eminently achievable and would be better all round.
replyI think the problem with those Maths proofs was they were massively rushed and OpenAI just couldn't be bothered to do it properly or actually check them. They were more interested in the PR than in helping advance Mathematics.
> put a cap on AI productivity
replyOh no, the horror