Good post, it perfectly captures the problem with AI. Here we have a claim that the double cover conjecture has a proof. Verified by… no one per the link.

Now imagine this proof is wrong. How would you know? Ok, think about the process in which you determine the correctness - why not do that initially?

And there it is. The problem laid bare. Ironically it reduces to the P and NP one.

▲

hellohello2 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You seem to be suggesting that it is just as hard to understand an existing proof to a problem, than to solve it yourself? I don't follow your argument at all, what are you trying to say?

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

odo1242 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Most likely they wrote the proof in Lean and had it verified by a computer

▲

amazingamazing 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You believe this based off what?

▲

CamperBob2 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Based on these people not being idiots or charlatans?

Why wouldn't they verify it, knowing that any shenanigans would certainly come to light?

	▲	Jweb_Guru 4 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Frontier labs have had multiple major announcements in the past about supposedly novel LLM generated theorems that turned out to be vastly overstating what actually happened. That's part of why they were so (appropriately) cautious with the unit distance proof.
	▲	hnisfulomrons 4 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

charcircuit 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The prompt does not mention Lean.

▲

cyanydeez 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I mean, if you've watched the past decade, this just seems like what news is today. "people are saying the double cover conjecture has a proof"