Post

21 May

A single result presented, no account of how many attempts External experts paraded, no disclosure of internal checking Two paper-shaped objects, no notes on authorship, contributions, quality control A 'rewritten chain of thought', no access to the original and no disclosure of how, why, by whom

You cannot brute force proofs like this. Which is why it hasn't been done before. Automated proof engines don't have a very dramatic track record. The most prominent one solved was the four color theorem, but it's proof is so long it can't be verified. Nothing at all like the present situation.

Please actually read the comments of mathematicians on these problems before commenting on them. arxiv.org/pdf/2605.20695 Mathematicians are accepting of the current situation. Don't Dunning-Kruger them.

arxiv.orgarxiv.org

leidendeclaration.aiLeiden Declaration on Artificial Intelligence and MathematicsThis declaration calls for action to address the challenges posed by the use of artificial intelligence within mathematics research.

You mean comments and statements like these? leidendeclaration.ai

10/8/26, 11:13 am0 reposts0 likes

Is the best you can find to try to claim that the proofs aren't real or are just a simple brute force "a group of mathematicians wants tool use to be disclosed"? Or did you not even read what you just linked?

Literally right in the first par of the preamble:"Among researchers, artificial intelligence has produced a wide range of reactions: enthusiasm for its potential to yield new discoveries; intimidation by the pace of developments; indifference to these rapid changes; and concern for the implications"

From their featured endorsements: Dijkgraaf: "Scientific research is in the midst of a major transformation through the impact of AI, and mathematics is one of the disciplines most fundamentally affected through automated proof generation and machine-generated reasoning."

Agricola: "AI is fundamentally transforming the way we do mathematics, and it is doing so at incredible speed. It offers fantastic possibilities when used honestly and competently as a ‘research assistant."

I read the preprint in May & it is the reason for my pithy bsky phrasing "external experts paraded". The point of my OP is to draw attention to the systematic way human labour is obscured in moments like these by companies like this — not to comment on the specific problem or mode of (dis)solution

The "human labor" here was merely verifying that the AI was correct and writing comments about it. Which is what the field of mathematical proofs is transforming into.

you say this, and I already pointed out in OP we don't see the human labour of selecting the problem(s), crafting the original prompt(s), massaging / redacting / cleaning up the CoT output, polishing it for presentation in paper form, etc (not to mention the erased labour of unattributed prior work)