There is however a new problem of scale. Erdös was a human and still managed to create work for an entire generation of mathematicians, how much of a mess will an automathician create?
I vote for "automathon"
Interesting that math gets so much attention, when actual advances to material science, biology and chemistry have much higher ramifications and economic benefits. I assume progress there is kept under wraps until they can capture the economic benefits. If they can do that, then the insane valuations may actually be valid.
You might think this is not very useful, maybe - but that’s not a reason to retract..?
> As part of our GitHub repository, we are sharing formalizations of many of the proofs in Lean, a programming language that allows mathematical proofs to be checked by a computer. We will update the repository with more formalizations as we obtain them.
Meaning they published all results before checking all of them, and intended to add more Lean proofs later. In the linked post they state ~42% of the posted results now have formalized proofs, some were added, some verified, and I assume this means that some results turned out to be wrong.
Or progress is not as straight forward in those fields as in math.
If your AI tool can help advance mathematical research, share the tool with mathematicians. Using it like this is irresponsible.
"AI will kill us all": no. Greedy humans will kill us all. With AI.
Lean itself is very hard to get rigorously correct, if you have every tried it yourself. I am not surprised if some AI even tries to benchmaxx Lean 4 by some loopholes
Also you are deeply confused about what accelerationism is, I believe. Sorry.
sashank_1509•2h ago
illwrks•1h ago
If that’s the case in a way its a similar delusion that average people are experiencing with their own AI use.
ssfdg•40m ago
Ekaros•23m ago
SequoiaHope•39m ago
IsTom•19m ago
bbor•5m ago