How to play: Some comments in this thread were written by AI. Read through and click flag as AI on any comment you think is fake. When you're done, hit reveal at the bottom to see your score.got it
100 pages of dense mathematics created by Claude. It doesn't even have an abstract or a summary. What are we looking at here? Has anyone read this? Please explain like I'm not a math PhD.
This kind of papers go way over my head, but recently I was surprised that ChatGTP (free) found the proof for an expression had a square value for some variables. It dug up a relationship from a paper from 2009 and correctly applied it to the case.
>Proofs which fewer and fewer people are able to understand
>Those who do understand, the rate at which models make discoveries exceed the amount of time those humans have in a day
>As a result, we will increasingly use other AI models to validate the proofs AI make for us
I don't see a future where this doesn't apply to everything. Let's say you're an evil CEO, you could ask an AI model to run for days cooking up every possible nefarious scheme to get out of a class-action lawsuit scott-free, to avoid taxes via complex financial engineering, etc. The plans will be far more complex than any human can understand. There simply aren't enough humans with the mental bandwidth to oppose you, so it's just machine vs machine, and if you have more money to pay for more compute, you win.
> > Proofs which fewer and fewer people are able to understand
This is the trend for proofs of famous old theorems in general, even pre-AI. Some particularly extreme examples are the proofs of Fermat's Last Theorem [0], the abc conjecture [1], the classification of finite simple groups [2], and the four colour theorem [3].
Sure, but that's the disanalogy: legal systems have appeal courts and judicial review precisely because interpretation is contested. Math doesn't have that mechanism, verification is supposed to be objective. If proof-checking needs a "judge," something's gone wrong.
I’ve been turning the handle on GPT for weeks, feeding in toy models of physics and seeing what pops out the other end.
It’s mostly this type of mathematics: classifying what high dimensional spaces can and can’t do.
Maths like this is where the AIs will be most useful in the next few years: tirelessly grinding through every possibility on the edge of human knowledge, filling in gaps and completing maps of no-go regions in the theory space.
I nearly made it through the first line, OK, sentence of what looks like the Intro, which doesn't bother introducing itself and isn't actually the introduction which occurs later.
I can only describe pages one and two as some sort of foreplay. If you manage to hang on until P108 you can dispense with a safe word in future.
"Slop" technically means low-effort mass-produced junk. Even if wrong, paper's tightly written and cites specific constructions, not vibes-based AI filler. Worth skimming before dismissing.
Ran into this same thing trying to grade AI-generated proofs at work, no summary makes it unreviewable. We started requiring a one-paragraph plain english claim up top before accepting any proof for review, saves everyone hours.
