> In either case I believe people who can put AI to the most value are the mathematicians themselves

The net output of math will increase, and mathematicians have more work now to unravel all this, and make it useful. AI plays the role of a monkey in the infinite monkey theorem [1]. We now need an LLM corollary - Something like: A finite number of LLM agents will almost surely find all theorems given an infinite token budget.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem

▲

srcreigh 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

It's impossible for finite number of LLMs to solve all theorems. This would imply that the busy beaver sequence is computable which implies the halting problem is decidable.

▲

40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

johnsmith1840 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

lol same with people.

"Given infinite thinking time a finite number of humans will solve all theorems"

I also love the angle that this was not intelligence just brute force. As if the mathematicians didn't reeaaally want to solve this they were just too lazy to give it a good try.

What does AI have to actually do before you realize these things are actually smart?

▲

alansaber 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

Machines have a much higher capacity for work than human beings. Saying that these proofs did not require equivelant intelligence, but benefitted from sheer volume, does not strike me as unreasonable.

	▲	jimmaswell 13 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It feels goalpost-movey to downplay exploring a large search space efficiently in regards to "intelligence". If we dug into a human genius's brain and found it was somehow trying out a million ways to solve a a problem at once, no one would seeiously suggest the person isn't actually intelligent. And our brains must something like that at some physical level. You can't have a "turtles all the way down" of reasoning - the building blocks must be simpler. It must reduce to something like pathfinding and brute force at some point, weighted by factors in the system and maybe some randomness.

▲

glimshe 10 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

This isn't necessarily true. There may be proofs so complex, they could exceed the limit of human cognition.