This result is some evidence that AI will not solve RH soon. If there were any easy solution hiding in plain sight then it probably would have found it.

Solving RH likely requires AI that is substantially more creative. But we haven't even solved the creativity problem for writing let alone mathematics. I believe that transformers are a trillion dollar local optimum that we will find it very hard to escape.

Let's wait for the models to produce a good novel first.

▲

jetrink 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I would expect to see LLMs that are creative in math before any that are creative in writing. Creativity is more easily specified in math and the solutions can be formally verified. There's no good way to classify creative writing. Many truly great works are overlooked by experts and the public until decades later. Many derivative works are commercially successful.

▲

zarzavat 5 hours ago | parent [-]

LLMs, both in writing and mathematics seem to only be capable of coming up with texts that are inside the distribution of the training data.

With writing it's just more obvious. LLMs don't write with personality. They don't create new and exciting worlds on their own. Everything they output feels derivative.

In mathematics you see the same effect. They are very good at finding results that humans missed, taking advantage of their broad knowledge and tireless work ethic.

But just as they have been unable to create new literary worlds, they also have so far been unable to create new mathematics.

I believe this lack of creativity is intrinsic to how these models are architected and trained. We want models that produce these in-distribution outputs because those types of models are more economically valuable. Nobody wants a coding agent with spontaneity, we want models that predictably and obediently solve problems - and that's what we got.

	▲	3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		[deleted]

▲

redox99 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> This result is some evidence that AI will not solve RH soon. If there were any easy solution hiding in plain sight then it probably would have found it.

There's no way you can conclude that. Yes, "Fable 2" or whatever this was probably won't. But we can't know what Fable 3/4/5/etc will be able to do.

If anything, if we have 1 or 2 more years of progress like the last 12 months, which have been insane, I'd say LLMs are likely to solve it.

▲

HappyPanacea 9 hours ago | parent [-]

You underestimate the difficulty of RH, there are far easier problems broadly related to RH (density hypothesis, Artin's holomorphy conjecture, Stark conjectures) which are still aren't solved.

	▲	redox99 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I think verifiable tasks like math will soon be like Chess. Machines way beyond human intelligence.