I don't think the claim is "they definitely have an oracle that solves the problem, and I reject it because it's hard to read". The claim is "OpenAI claims to have used an oracle to solve the problem. The proof is very difficult to read, and to even know if it does or not, we have to go through it with a fine-toothed comb, but they're going around claiming they definitely solved the problem (or at least getting press that claims that which they aren't pushing back against) and this might convince the people who sign grants even if it isn't true"

People who are invested in the idea that we've invented a general intelligence, now, which includes all these companies that are literally financially invested in this claim they are making, will tend to believe that its results can already be trusted in domains like this. Some mathematicians seem to believe some of the proofs written by their models, and some, like this one, don't. I do think it's valid for an expert to push back against the claim that the best use of their time right now is to verify the poorly written work of everyone who's claimed to solve the problem

▲

famouswaffles 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Over the year, nothing they've released with a lean proof attached has turned out false (That's sort of the entire point. It's not impossible but it's really difficult). There's a reason most mathematicians, including the ones vehemently against OpenAI's dumping are not arguing the results are secretly false or have a high potential to be. And indeed, if that were the case, it would quickly become apparent and all this worry about grant signers would vanish into the wind. It's very easy to ignore nonsense. The problem is that it isn't nonsense.

▲

advael 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I really don't know enough about it to know whether you're right or not, nor do I know whether or not you know enough to make the claim you're making, so I won't make an argument one way or another because it's non-sequitur to what I said anyway. The fact that you or I or Sam Altman or Terrence Tao believe the claim is irrelevant to whether this obligates the person who wrote the blog post to believe the claim, and it sounds like he's willing to consider the possibility that it is right, and would read the paper if it reached a threshold of comprehensibility expected of people making that kind of claim.

	▲	famouswaffles 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I's not a non sequitor because it cuts right to the point. He's under no obligation to read it sure, but that doesn't mean Open AI isn't justified in claiming to have proved it. The justification isn't Sam Altman's belief or Tao's or anyone else's authority. Results accompanied with lean-verified proofs whose formal statements match the problem at hand have arguably stronger justification than the vast majority of human math publications.