Just don't. If you read the story here carefully, you see that AI was used to work from theory built by others which showed that the Euler equations possesed finite-time blow-ups. But to make that step, actual good understanding for mathematics was needed. My experience with software has been the exact same.

I fear this is only temporary and due mostly to the complexity of the problem. Consider the recent counter-example to the Dinitz–Garg–Goemans conjecture:

> https://chatgpt.com/share/6a60b2eb-0b64-83ee-9c76-7931ca1de0...

The prompts for the chat above are:

> Construct a counterexample to general (non-planar) case of Dinitz Garg Goemans conjecture. You should do a breakthrough and find a structured counterexample.

> [gpt works for a while and then gives up]

> Continue the search. Have a clear strategy obtained from deeper understanding of the problem structure.

> [gpt works for a while then gives up]

> it's enough of partial results. let's finish with a complete unconditional counterexample

> [gpt proves the problem]

I could have written these prompts sophmore year of highschool, if not earlier. True, it took more experienced mathematicians to verify it, but I don't fancy a role as a glorified editor. I want to solve problems! Discover new techniques! Not babysit an AI while eating breakfast.