Are you saying this result is uninteresting and therefore AI slop or puffery? Obviously OpenAI has a motivation to "market" the accomplishment as much as possible, but surely you agree it IS a remarkable achievement?

▲

missyougowers 24 minutes ago | parent [-]

I'll let the mathematicians in the field determine the level of "interest" in this result, but saying "you may want to make sure you are sitting down" is pure puffery.

> has a motivation to "market" the accomplishment as much as possible

I am so sick of HN promoting unethical behaviour as virtuous due to it's financialization worship at the foot of "valuations".

> but surely you agree it IS a remarkable achievement?

If you could define the bounds of "remarkable" I could answer this question.

	▲	horhay 10 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's remarkable, its not out of the bounds of the pattern of success that AI has had with math recently to the point that people should sound alarm bells. A lot of the weight this holds is the fact that it's an old problem and that its difficulty hinges on the lack of investigation the disproof side of hypothesis. The model basically took a contrarian path and found tools and methods that support that a disproof is viable. So the (unquantified amount of) mathematicians out there were all dedicating their resources on the notion that this can be proved. Some with hindsight would say that if they a had team of experts who are driven to the goal of disproof that this would have been achievable by humans, and one of the mathematicians of the paper state as much,this still has value in terms of reliability measurement, and possibly human-aided endeavors when the methods scrounged by the model can be used in other solutions.