Every thing passes through the following stages:
1. AI cannot do something.
2. AI starts being able to do something, but one needs to prompt it carefully, so one needs to be an expert, see, we will always need human experts <--- this article is here
3. AI just one-shots it.
Why do people still need to say this for each and every task? It's just reliving the bitter lesson over and over again.
Why not not show these kickass one-shots and prove how awesome AI can be?
You need to define what "one-shotting" is. Some examples would help too.
https://chatgpt.com/share/6a60b2eb-0b64-83ee-9c76-7931ca1de0...
I've been positively surprised by the result of a (overly?) thorough description, but at least to me as a math layman, this conjecture stuff is less impressive to me than a to-do app. Aren't they basically educated guesses that nobody put any real weight on, anyway? Asked differently, what does a disproven conjecture such as this change in the world that couldn't have been achieved by "Interesting idea, but you're just guessing, so let's circle back to this when you're not"? What does a disproven conjecture gain us that couldn't have been gotten more cheaply by not making it in the first place?
Now explain how someone with no expertise would even know about the Dinitz conjecture, or even a conjecture at all for that matter, and how that would be useful to them.
What you are proposing is a barrier no AI and no human and no intelligence would pass.
The idea of an AI that one-shots a task presumes that the one requesting the task already knows what the task is, and no additional expertise.
Similarly, when you ask an AI "please summarize this text" it means you already know what summarization is as a concept.