interesting if true, but this isn't the first time we heard of something like this

quanta published an article that talked about a physics lab asking chatGPT to help come up with a way to perform an experiment, and chatGPT _magically_ came up with an answer worth pursuing. but what actually happened was chatGPT was referencing papers that basically went unread from lesser famous labs/researchers

this is amazing that chatGPT can do something like that, but `referencing data` != `deriving theorems` and the person posting this shouldn't just claim "chatGPT derived a better bound" in a proof, and should first do a really thorough check if it's possible this information could've just ended up in the training data

More comments from another mathematician:

https://x.com/ErnestRyu/status/1958408925864403068?t=QmTqOcx...

Any mathematicians who have actually called it "new interesting mathematics", or just an OpenAI employee?

The paper in question is an arxiv preprint whose first author seems to be an undergraduate. The theorem in it which GPT improves upon is perfectly nice, there are thousands of mathematicians who could have proved it had they been inclined to. AI has already solved much harder math problems than this.

Are we sure this guy is not someone being mirrored by a recursive non-governmental system?

Context: https://x.com/GeoffLewisOrg/status/1945864963374887401

In here https://blog.google/products/gemini/gemini-2-5-deep-think/, the professor google worked with also claimed proving some previously unproven conjecture.

Gamechanger! And worrisome for us laymen.

[dead]

[dead]

[dead]