If some LLM is able to come up with a simple proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (a solution that Fermat himself could come up with) in the future, would you still say that Fermat's Last Theorem is hard?

▲

QuesnayJr a day ago | parent [-]

No. I would say that it was easy, and that something had gone terribly wrong with math research that we missed it.

▲

meowface a day ago | parent [-]

This would seem to lead to absurd implications. What if in, say, 20 years, an AI is able to independently prove nearly everything important in under an hour, including the Riemann hypothesis, with no contamination from other proofs? (Let's say it's also free to write and run arbitrary code, as well.)

Whether it's 5, 10, 20, 50 years, obviously the takeaway cannot be "something had gone terribly wrong". The takeaway would be the smartest humans were never close to the theoretical intelligence and wisdom ceiling and never could've been. This will one day seem obvious in retrospect. There's no reason evolution by natural selection would've landed any species near such a ceiling.

	▲	QuesnayJr 20 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not at all the scenario you proposed. You proposed a simple proof that Fermat himself would understand. We have developed a tremendous amount of math since Fermat, and if none of it was relevant that would be damning. If there's a simple proof of the Riemann hypothesis that Riemann would understand, then I would say the same thing. That doesn't rule out an AI that makes a genuine breakthrough. If there's some new branch of math that no human has even imagined that answers the Riemann hypothesis, then that is exactly how I would expect it to go.