Could just be a sampling bias. Humanity had something like 3000 years to make famous conjectures, whereas AI mathematicians have been around for a month or so. Give them time, I'm sure they'll start formulating highly consequential unsolved problems soon enough.

Somewhat tiring that as alway any criticism is reduced to "but have you tried this on the latest model".

> AI mathematicians have been around for a month or so.

LLMs have been around for years, and they're explicitly trained on the entire history of human mathematics (without which they'd be unable to do anything).

Not just sampling bias, but also human bias.

In a sense, how do you know whether the problem your AI has just solved is important? A simple proxy is to just check whether humans have thought it's important.

That's also why famous open problems are a good benchmark or proxy: you don't need to convince the rest of the world that the problem your lab's new AI just solved is actually useful or hard.