You don’t really need evidence, we all know AI tends to hallucinate when presented with a problem they can’t solve.
So far I’ve only read about 1 example of a problem that an AI may have solved. All the rest are without details and are not confirmed in any way.
Remember AI companies are huge on propaganda for their technology, but not so big on admitting the shortcomings.
This is not about the mathematical evidence, but the lack of evidence that AI has made mathematical breakthroughs.
The point here is there is rarely any evidence for the claims about AI amazing accomplishments.
The burden of proof is on the one with the claim that AI has made these accomplishments, not on the one being sceptic about it.
Articles with proofs have been published, both by AI companies as well as by mathematicians who disclosed the whole development of the proof was done autonomously by LLMs.
There is no evidence stated in the first article, and it’s paywalled.
The second article doesn’t show independent confirmation that the alleged proofs are real. Which was exactly what the original criticism was about.
Yes we all know the claims, and you have done nothing but parroting those claims without evidence.
I am not a mathematician, thus I don’t really know where to find indipendent confirmation or even how that is generally handled by mathematicians.
However: there are plenty proofs on arxiv that disclose have been found with LLMs.
Some of these proofs relate to famous problems and have been in the news.
Fields medal winners discuss the importance of LLMs and how it may produce too many proofs for humans to handle.
I trust that those proofs published on arxiv have been reviewed by many mathematicians, if they were incorrect that would have rapidly become known.
Interesting.
Got any sources for this claim?
LLM mathematical proof exploits theorem proover bugs [to get false statement to be “proven” true]
https://infosec.exchange/@0xabad1dea/117002106099986943
You don’t really need evidence, we all know AI tends to hallucinate when presented with a problem they can’t solve.
So far I’ve only read about 1 example of a problem that an AI may have solved. All the rest are without details and are not confirmed in any way.
Remember AI companies are huge on propaganda for their technology, but not so big on admitting the shortcomings.
“you don’t really need evidence” we are talking about mathematics. The evidence is the point.
This is not about the mathematical evidence, but the lack of evidence that AI has made mathematical breakthroughs.
The point here is there is rarely any evidence for the claims about AI amazing accomplishments.
The burden of proof is on the one with the claim that AI has made these accomplishments, not on the one being sceptic about it.
Articles with proofs have been published, both by AI companies as well as by mathematicians who disclosed the whole development of the proof was done autonomously by LLMs.
Which is way more possible to link to. But you chose not to?
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01553-1
https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/education/fields-medalist-terence-tao-warns-ai-could-produce-more-math-proofs-than-humans-can-handle-5102580.html
There is no evidence stated in the first article, and it’s paywalled.
The second article doesn’t show independent confirmation that the alleged proofs are real. Which was exactly what the original criticism was about.
Yes we all know the claims, and you have done nothing but parroting those claims without evidence.
Yes, scientific articles are expensive. I know that, that sucks. That’s why most of this stuff is on arxiv.
I linked to evidence that mathematicians are using LLMs to find proofs and publish those proofs. Which is what I said is happening.
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/221183/can-i-publish-a-novel-theorem-which-was-proven-with-ai-assistance
I am not a mathematician, thus I don’t really know where to find indipendent confirmation or even how that is generally handled by mathematicians. However: there are plenty proofs on arxiv that disclose have been found with LLMs. Some of these proofs relate to famous problems and have been in the news. Fields medal winners discuss the importance of LLMs and how it may produce too many proofs for humans to handle.
I trust that those proofs published on arxiv have been reviewed by many mathematicians, if they were incorrect that would have rapidly become known.
Oof.
Not at hand, but there were a number of news items about this in the last few weeks.