Wikipedia has policies and it needs to use reliable sources. This rule is often skirted and a lot of facts are cited to self-published and fast moving web sources. Those who are braking the progress on the article here are doing the right thing, trying to uphold the editorial standard.

Luckily there is now a New Scientist article to link to, so, the issue should now be resolved.

thanks for the productive reply, really contributing to HN here

>"Anti-AI psychosis" will probably grow to outcompete AI psychosis by year's end.

Everyone has their own experiences making it hard to judge what attitudes are prevalent.

From what I have encountered the Anti-AI people have been more common and more outright scary.

I have heard some ideas from the Pro AI crowd and thought to myself "Yeah, that's not going to happen anytime soon", There was enthusiasm leading to overoptimism. A lot of them are going to be disappointed.

The Anti AI crowd, which I distinguish from those who want AI done responsibly, sustainably, and as safe as can be realistically be managed. There are real criticisms to be made on real issues here. The Anti AI crowd I see seem to want to scrub the world of it, they stand in the way of any responsible implementation because it would be accepting it.

Those people scare me, the vitriol and bad faith interpretation of everything as an indicator of the proof of their reality has the tone of the moral righteousness of a true believer. The outright endorsement of violent acts has me concerned that the more radical or emotionally unstable of the group will do some serious harm. It's not the bulk of a radical movement that causes atrocities, most of those involved just create an environment that normalises toxic attitudes. That environment can incubate a few individuals that act, either for phycological reasons, status, or simple the inability to empathise or consider consequences.

I was responding to the person, not the top post.

I find it funny to be "anti-ai" when I work in the field. Pointing out dangers that need to be addressed isn't being Anti-AI.

I didn't comment on the top post because it's not my area.

This is just a form of mass stupidity by the non-intellectually curious people who massively overrate their own intelligence.

Sorry, but if the current models haven't shown you something amazing at this point that would make this of little surprise, it because the person is an intellectual bore and completely full of shit themselves.

The talk page about the conjecture clarifies WP:RSSELF:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Sel...

> Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.

I'm not complaining about Wikipedia here, just noting for the thread: it's a vector of polynomials. It has a nonsingular Jacobian. Provided with it are 3 distinct points it sends to the same point; it can't be invertible.

What Wikipedia says about this doesn't matter, does it?

It's more like WP:BASICMATH. It's like someone showing a huge number isn't prime (proverbially hard to factor, trivial to check) and HN/WP users requesting a reputable source citation for the factor multiplication when anyone can input it in a calculator.

Verifying that counterexample is a trivial calculation for basically anyone qualified to make substantive changes in that category of article, it shouldn't be an issue in and of itself.

Discovering the counter example is research, validating it is basic calculations.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research...

Wikipedia's editors won't be happy until the site has joined Stack Overflow in self-owned oblivion.

This assumes that you already have Sage installed, and you have some working knowledge in using Sage.

Indeed. I was mainly responding to the comment about waiting for "independent seasoned mathematicians to verify", whereas in this case it is easy enough to convince oneself of the counterexample's correctness.