Then what sort of math problem would be a milestone for you where an AI was doing something novel?

Or are you just saying that solving novel problems involves remixing ideas? Well, that's true for human problem solving too.

▲

robot-wrangler a day ago | parent [-]

> Then what sort of math problem would be a milestone for you where an AI was doing something novel?

What? If we're discussing novel synthesis, and it's being contrasted with answer-from-search / answer-from-remix.. the problem does not matter. Only the answer and the originality of the approach. Connecting two fields that were not previously connected is novel, or applying a new kind of technique to an old problem. Recognizing that an unsolved problem is very much like a solved one is search / remix. So what happened here? Tao says it is

> is largely consistent with other recent demonstrations of AI using existing methods to resolve Erdos problem

Existing. Methods. Tao also says "This is a demonstration of the genuine increase in capability of these tools in recent months". This is the sentence everyone will focus on, so what is that capability?

> the more interesting capability revealed by these events is the ability to rapidly write and rewrite new versions of a text as needed, even if one was not the original author of the argument.

Rejoice! But rejoice for the right reasons, and about what actually happened. Style and voice transformations, interesting new capabilities for fuzzy search. Correct usage of external tools for heavy-lifting with symbolics. And yes, actual problem solving. Novel techniques, creativity, originality though? IDK, sounds kind of optimistic based on the detail here.

▲

frozenseven 15 hours ago | parent [-]

If you squint hard enough, every new thing is an example of "answer-from-search / answer-from-remix". Solving any Erdős problem in this manner was largely seen as unthinkable just a year ago.

>the problem does not matter.

Really? All of the other Erdős problems? Millennium Problems? Anything at all? This gets us directly into the territory of "nothing can convince us otherwise".

▲

robot-wrangler 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Tiresome. You're quoting me out of context, and generally assigning me the POV you want to argue with. You come across as pro-AI looking for anti-AI to do combat with. First, I'm not the right guy, and second, all I'm really saying above is that if we're going to do argument-from-authority, maybe let's engage with what the authority is actually saying in TFA.

	▲	frozenseven 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I don't think I quoted you out of context. In any case, Terence Tao and co. are doing wonderful work in this area. I'd encourage everyone to bookmark the following link: https://github.com/teorth/erdosproblems/wiki/AI-contribution... It's a rapidly evolving story and I expect H1 2026 to bring much clarity on this topic. Especially with upcoming model releases and more professional mathematicians taking an interest.