So it wasted everyone's time, thousands of hours of research trying to disprove something said very loudly. What OpenAI is doing is a DoS of the scientific community: wasting your time trying to check if they're not wrong, and claiming glory in the mean time.

▲

tmhn2 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

That's true, but the story would have unfolded differently if Mochizuki had a lean-verified proof and was correct. I guess baked into my premise is that AI is producing reliable proofs (in the long term at least).

▲

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

Agreed! Although, if done by a mathematician, it's not a ~complete waste. I think the community learns something along the way.

Is there an established term for the idea of "DoS"? I've taken to calling it slop fatigue.

	▲	SJMG 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Denial of service is the established term. Hammering their API (reviewer committees) would be an informal one

▲

charcircuit 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

OpenAI avoids this by formally verifying the proof.

https://github.com/openai/NavierStokesAndEuler