4 ms·

Good post, it perfectly captures the problem with AI. Here we have a claim that the double cover conjecture has a proof. Verified by… no one per the link. Now

Good post, it perfectly captures the problem with AI. Here we have a claim that the double cover conjecture has a proof. Verified by… no one per the link. Now imagine this proof is wrong. How would you know? Ok, think about the process in which you determine the correctness - why not do that initially? And there it is. The problem laid bare. Ironically it reduces to the P and NP one.

cyanydeez 4mo ago
I mean, if you've watched the past decade, this just seems like what news is today. "people are saying the double cover conjecture has a proof"
odo1242 4mo ago
Most likely they wrote the proof in Lean and had it verified by a computer
- amazingamazing 4mo ago
  You believe this based off what?
  - CamperBob2 4mo ago
    Based on these people not being idiots or charlatans? Why wouldn't they verify it, knowing that any shenanigans would certainly come to light?
    - Jweb_Guru 4mo ago
      Frontier labs have had multiple major announcements in the past about supposedly novel LLM generated theorems that turned out to be vastly overstating what actually happened. That's part of why they were so (appropriately) cautious with the unit distance proof.
    - hnisfulomrons 4mo ago
      [dead]
    - YeGoblynQueenne 3mo ago
      This is spot on. And yet, when I try to publish my papers on P = NP with the proof reducing to "trust me bro, I checked this out carefully" I get shot down by irrate reviewers who demand to see my work. Why can't those people just believe what I say? Maybe if I was an AI?
  - odo1242 3mo ago
    This has been the standard in the world of "AI-produces-math-proofs" for a while
- charcircuit 4mo ago
  The prompt does not mention Lean.
deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
hellohello2 4mo ago
You seem to be suggesting that it is just as hard to understand an existing proof to a problem, than to solve it yourself? I don't follow your argument at all, what are you trying to say?

cyanydeez 4mo ago

I mean, if you've watched the past decade, this just seems like what news is today. "people are saying the double cover conjecture has a proof"

odo1242 4mo ago

Most likely they wrote the proof in Lean and had it verified by a computer

amazingamazing 4mo ago
You believe this based off what?
- CamperBob2 4mo ago
  Based on these people not being idiots or charlatans? Why wouldn't they verify it, knowing that any shenanigans would certainly come to light?
  - Jweb_Guru 4mo ago
    Frontier labs have had multiple major announcements in the past about supposedly novel LLM generated theorems that turned out to be vastly overstating what actually happened. That's part of why they were so (appropriately) cautious with the unit distance proof.
  - hnisfulomrons 4mo ago
    [dead]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3mo ago
    This is spot on. And yet, when I try to publish my papers on P = NP with the proof reducing to "trust me bro, I checked this out carefully" I get shot down by irrate reviewers who demand to see my work. Why can't those people just believe what I say? Maybe if I was an AI?
- odo1242 3mo ago
  This has been the standard in the world of "AI-produces-math-proofs" for a while
charcircuit 4mo ago
The prompt does not mention Lean.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

hellohello2 4mo ago

You seem to be suggesting that it is just as hard to understand an existing proof to a problem, than to solve it yourself? I don't follow your argument at all, what are you trying to say?