> As an aside, the professor in question is Richard Borcherds, fields medalist.

I get what you're saying but credentialism of this kind has literally zero meaning today. For instance restating your opening sentence as "As an aside, the professor in question is Johnny Doe, with access to 100+ unrestricted Mythos agents" sounds far more credible and intimidating at this point.

> the professor in question is Johnny Doe, with access to 100+ unrestricted Mythos agents

Yet the folks with access to unrestricted Mythos agents tackling mathematics are hiring credentialed mathematicians. Your heuristic, applied to itself, rejects itself.

We’re a long way from that world. Does your company even interview people who don’t fit the requirements of a job position? No, of course not. So what are you filtering on, if not credentials.

This guy doesn’t just have credentials. He has record of proven results.

That doesn’t make any sense to me. Access to AI doesn’t make you more credible. At best, it makes you more productive.

You are suffering from AI psychosis.

Perhaps you think so, but most people disagree.

lol yes, a monkey with no mathematical training but an army of agents is a better mathematician than a literal fields medallist.

The better LLMs get at math the better the people using them need to be to be able to ask them the right questions and understand their output.