33 ms·

This is just tit-for-tat clickbait. The researcher’s wording was a bit unclear for sure, but far from incorrect.

• resoluteteeth 1y ago
  I disagree. There is no way to interpret "GPT-5 just found solutions to 10 (!) previously unsolved Erdos problems" as saying something other than GPT-5 having solved them. If it just found existing solutions then they obviously weren't "previously unsolved" so the tweet is wrong. He clearly misunderstood the situation and jumped to the conclusion that GPT-5 had actually solved the problems because that's what he wanted to believe. That said, the misunderstanding is understandable because the tweet he was responding to said they had been listed as "open", but solving unsolved erdos problems by itself would be such a big deal that he probably should have double checked it.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • bbor 1y ago
    But… it found them… and they were previously marked unsolved… Note that “solved” does not equal “found”
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]