> The phase where AI proves Millennium Prize level problems but can't write up a human-like paper explaining the proof strategy may be similarly brief It's abs

> The phase where AI proves Millennium Prize level problems but can't write up a human-like paper explaining the proof strategy may be similarly brief It's absurd to assume that because LLMs are improving in certain aspects they will improve in everything, specially when the part they are lacking in is not precisely something that would be a strength of their architecture. I mean, models have improved a lot but they are still not good at strictly following instructions consistently (there's a reason why AI labs are worried about safety alignment). They are still mediocre to bad at software design, even the latest models (haven't tested Astra seriously yet). And it's the same reason they are bad at creating mathematical theories: they do not have mental models like we do, it's not even useful for them. Their comprehension is limited to textual context that they need to refresh and reprocess continuously. That's just how LLMs work. > I find it interesting how many people are incapable of imagining that the tech capability will not be frozen I find it interesting that after taking this long to, I assume, finally understanding the point the letter was making, you automatically switch to "oh well AI will do that too".