A months ago headlines read that ChatGPT “solved” an 80 year old Erdős problem.
I found Cal Newport’s take on this to be much more balanced. From what I remember, ChatGPT didn’t “solve” anything. It dumped out a bunch of text, that humans reviewed, and it gave them an idea for how to disprove a thing Erdős thought was true, but couldn’t prove.
LLMs are advanced tools , not creators. Just as we don't credit our computer or IDE as co-authors when writing code, we shouldn't credit AI for an engineer's or Math or any type work. If we start crediting tools, we'd logically have to credit the entire tech stack behind them.
A months ago headlines read that ChatGPT “solved” an 80 year old Erdős problem.
I found Cal Newport’s take on this to be much more balanced. From what I remember, ChatGPT didn’t “solve” anything. It dumped out a bunch of text, that humans reviewed, and it gave them an idea for how to disprove a thing Erdős thought was true, but couldn’t prove.
https://youtu.be/fhZRWZ6J4k4
In cases like this, it seemed like the LLM got a lot more credit than it deserved. So I’m guessing it would go something like that.
LLMs are increasingly solving math problems on their own, producing entire correct proofs
I like Cal but his takes consistently miss the slope of improvement of the technology
The (boring) answer to "who gets the prize?" is whoever the CMI decides gets the prize.
https://www.claymath.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/millenni...
LLMs are advanced tools , not creators. Just as we don't credit our computer or IDE as co-authors when writing code, we shouldn't credit AI for an engineer's or Math or any type work. If we start crediting tools, we'd logically have to credit the entire tech stack behind them.
Euler