That's still a pretty big marker of competence in my eyes.
The point of controversy seems to be who gets credit
It's an utterly disrespectful, exploitive process, but all in line with exploitative predator capitalism of the stock market and big companies, now exploiting the knowledge / academia domain for scraps with a thin veneer of 'for science' PR.
I would like to see chat logs etc and understand how much of a progress was done by human.
Also, a lot of my mathematicians buddies have reported students basically asking if it's worth ever doing grad school for pure math, and even very motivated students are looking for other options now. It's not because they aren't passionate about it, it's that they don't want to work for another half decade or more just to have to start their careers all over.
All of this so that OpenAI and Anthropic can get into math result dick measuring to gas up their IPOs. Sickening.
https://mathstodon.xyz/@andreasthom/117240535270608201
Legend2440•2h ago
They don't even claim to have had a proof, only to have been working on it.
rnijveld•1h ago
To me it would feel more like how LLMs seem to work for me personally: incapable of unique work, but very capable of capturing large amounts of data and connecting the dots.
itake•13m ago
If this wasn’t human driven, I’d expect to see other problems within that problem. Space solved not just the ones that it had chat data on.