Let me know when the Fields medal arrives in the mail.
It won't because even though it looks clever to you, people who /do/ understand math and LLMs understand that LLMs /are/ regurgitating
Why does your LLM need you to tell it to look in the first place? Why isn't just telling us all the answers to unsolved conjectures known and unknown?
Why isn't the LLM just telling us all the answers to all the problems we are facing?
Why isn't the LLM telling us, step by step with zero error, how to build the machine that can answer the ultimate question?
Here's a Fields Medalist commenting who doesn't seem to believe that.
https://x.com/wtgowers/status/2057175727271800912
Um - all I see is
> Timothy Gowers @wtgowers
> @wtgowers
> If you are a mathematician, then you may want to make sure you are sitting down before reading further.
If your refutation requires someone to have an account, login, and read something - it's meaningless
Try https://xcancel.com/wtgowers/status/2057175727271800912
it's readable to most, it's annoying having to swamp through ex-Twitter .. but there are work around's.
Thanks - I'll read that and the above linked OpenAI PR
But, I remain sceptical
The (linked by OpenAI) comment paper by various tangential mathematicians was the most interesting read from my PoV:
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29a...
it includes the longer remarks by Gowers & others.
https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/74c24085-19b0-4534-9c90-465b8e29a...