291–300 of 562 posts
This is a rare instance where feeding this groundbreaking information into an LLM gives _them_ psychosis. I fed this to claude code and watched it verify the result in 7 different ways to be 100% certain, and it was just flabbergasted. Quite remarkable.
Gemini just checks the web first it seems, and already references the news.
Kimi doesn't quite believe it.
This is a rare instance where feeding this groundbreaking information into an LLM gives _them_ psychosis. I fed this to claude code and watched it verify the result in 7 different ways to be 100% certain, and it was just flabbergasted. Quite remarkable.
Same result. Public share https://claude.ai/share/19fd1a34-d63b-4a16-8d83-60d5b79e7747 It did the multiple verification sequence before expanding to internet search where it found this thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So the conjecture that survived Keller, Abhyankar, Moh's degree-100 verification, and five-plus published wrong proofs appears to have died via tweet during the World Cup final.
I lol’d. I didn’t know Fable was this sassy
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Cheating how? The proof is in the pudding...
The parent wants to be skeptical… nothing wrong with being suspicious of marketing claims, right?
I would be a lot less impressed if I found out the session was guided by an expert in the field who already had a good idea of where to look. For example, I don’t believe that the results Terrance Tao gets from an LLM are comparable to what I am going to get.
I’m not even saying I’m a skeptic. Just that there’s nothing wrong with keeping your eyes open and asking for details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason this was "easy" is because the conjecture turned out to be false. If the collatz conjecture holds true (and most mathematicians seem to think it will), it will be much harder to prove than your average Erdos problem.
I think parent’s point is that every false conjecture can cost a lot of time to be spent on futile affirmative proofs. So if we “clean up” a bunch of false conjectures, then more effort can be spent on interesting proofs of the others. (Probably a rather naive view of the value of conjectures but I’m just offering an alternative interpretation of the comment.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They gave their "logic", such as it is ... and it's utterly irrational. Note that the "they" who published the counterexample on X is some rando mathematician (Levent Alpöge) working for Anthropic, not Anthropic the organization. He posted the counterexample in a tweet -- reason enough for "not disclosing the LLM chat session". There's no reason to think that it won't provided if asked for, but it hardly seems releva…
> some rando mathematician (Levent Alpöge) working for Anthropic, not Anthropic the organization Why do you trust a random stranger so much? Will you hand over your car keys to a random stranger? Sharing the chat will take 30s of their time. > There's no reason to think that it won't provided if asked for But they didn't provide it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> some rando mathematician (Levent Alpöge) working for Anthropic, not Anthropic the organization Why do you trust a random stranger so much? Will you hand over your car keys to a random stranger? Sharing the chat will take 30s of their time. > There's no reason to think that it won't provided if asked for But they didn't provide it.
OK, so the two options are: A) Claude really produced this counterexample B) A mathematician working for Anthropic solved a problem mathematicians have been working on for more than a century, and then credited it to Claude for PR purposes If you believe B is more likely, why would you then believe a proof in the form of a chat log, when said chat log could itself have been faked by Anthropic way more easily than sol…
I don’t believe a mathematician produced the counter example secretly, but how much did they contribute to the result?
AI isn’t magic, so to evaluate the value delta, you need to know the value of the input.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think parent’s point is that every false conjecture can cost a lot of time to be spent on futile affirmative proofs. So if we “clean up” a bunch of false conjectures, then more effort can be spent on interesting proofs of the others. (Probably a rather naive view of the value of conjectures but I’m just offering an alternative interpretation of the comment.)
Did you read what you responded to? The Collatz conjecture is almost certainly not false, so no "clean up" is possible.
Many people believed the same about the Jacobian Conjecture.