11 ms·

The amount of goalpost moving is insane. "Yeah it can solve Millenium problems, but can it do it with nothing more than a one sentence prompt?" Also there are

by redox99 25d ago

The amount of goalpost moving is insane. "Yeah it can solve Millenium problems, but can it do it with nothing more than a one sentence prompt?" Also there are proofs where the only human steering was "keep going".

aeve890 25d ago
Parent comment is claiming creativity and genius beyond human experts, so why not ask for a fully unassisted AI novel result? Having access to the entire corpus of human knowledge, what else such amazing entity would require to solve a hard problem by its own? Any result of such kind from an AI alone would be enough to refute my argument, yet you don't present any. >Also there are proofs where the only human steering was "keep going". Which ones?
- masterspy7 25d ago
  https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta >Throughout this process, Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress.
  - aeve890 25d ago
    Do you even know what a proof entails? This shit is not a proof, come on.
    - indigo945 24d ago
      What? The article states: > Drawing on extensive prior research by mathematicians over the past decades, it > [Claude] has increased this bound [for the fraction of zeros of the Riemann zeta > function that satisfy the Riemann hypothesis] from 41.6% to 67.2%. Claude also > produced a formally verifiable proof of its result. How is a formally verifiable proof not a proof? You're making literally no sense.
sp527 25d ago
Well, in fairness, the OP asked for counterpoints. He didn't stipulate that they need to be reasonable.
- aeve890 25d ago
  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If OP claim superhuman genius, then they should prove superhuman genius. Simple as that.

by redox99 25d ago

aeve890 25d ago

Parent comment is claiming creativity and genius beyond human experts, so why not ask for a fully unassisted AI novel result? Having access to the entire corpus of human knowledge, what else such amazing entity would require to solve a hard problem by its own? Any result of such kind from an AI alone would be enough to refute my argument, yet you don't present any. >Also there are proofs where the only human steering was "keep going". Which ones?

masterspy7 25d ago
https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta >Throughout this process, Jarred's input was mostly limited to sending Claude messages of encouragement (mostly variants of “keep going” or “believe in yourself”).2 This seems to have helped Claude overcome some initial skepticism that it could make meaningful progress.
- aeve890 25d ago
  Do you even know what a proof entails? This shit is not a proof, come on.
  - indigo945 24d ago
    What? The article states: > Drawing on extensive prior research by mathematicians over the past decades, it > [Claude] has increased this bound [for the fraction of zeros of the Riemann zeta > function that satisfy the Riemann hypothesis] from 41.6% to 67.2%. Claude also > produced a formally verifiable proof of its result. How is a formally verifiable proof not a proof? You're making literally no sense.

sp527 25d ago

Well, in fairness, the OP asked for counterpoints. He didn't stipulate that they need to be reasonable.

aeve890 25d ago
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If OP claim superhuman genius, then they should prove superhuman genius. Simple as that.