> The Navier-Stokes proof is 57 pages of very dense math
> how poorly the cutting edge models do with being concise
LLMs solve a Millennium prize problem. People complain the proof is too long, within a week. What a time to be alive!
> The Navier-Stokes proof is 57 pages of very dense math
> how poorly the cutting edge models do with being concise
LLMs solve a Millennium prize problem. People complain the proof is too long, within a week. What a time to be alive!
Deep commentary on an unverified proof of this level requires extreme expertise. So the existence of some shallow commentary is uninteresting; it doesn't actually imply pettiness or deflection or anything like that because it's so hard to make your commentary any deeper at this time. And no we shouldn't expect people to say nothing.
My observation isn't that solving a Millennium prize problem is not impressive.
It is the mechanism the LLMs use to do it. They seem to accel right now at quantity of work over quality of work. I'd be willing to wager there is a much simpler way to achieve the proof.
I've also seen this with code, LLMs do get the job done, but they tend to write 10-100x more code than humans to get the same job done. Still a massive value gain because they can write that much code extremely quickly.
"if llms are so intelligent why is cancer still not cured?"
I'm waiting for the inevitable: "Well, LLMs only cured a few types of cancer"
Then: "LLMs only cured cancer as a marketing stunt."