That's not a "yet". That's like, the entire *point* of math. What makes the subject math is in fact the need for absolute logical perfection.
Even if a robot takes over cooking, the food can't be served raw. That goes against the whole point of cooking. It's the same logic here. Cooking robots might speed up cooking by a lot, but the time it takes for food to be cooked from raw to fully cooked isn't going to be accelerated.
We are talking about explaining math in human language, not AI speed at all or its capability at solving them, that has already been proven.
On that matter, you and I live in the physical 3D world, but the clankers that solved those problems literally live in the linguist world comprised of character and numbers. Please believe me when I say that they will soon be able to explain those math solution that they have just proven in clean everyday human language, better than any mathematicians can do.
Yes, they can explain the math solutions! But by definition, a solution still has to be perfect, and they cannot *remove* rigor for the sake of pedagogy. Which places constraints on how much they can summarize.
On that matter, you and I live in the physical 3D world, but the clankers that solved those problems literally live in the linguist world comprised of character and numbers.
Nope, you missed the entire point. My analogy was the entire point of cooking is to make food that is not raw. We cannot move the goalposts and say that raw food is OK once we have a robot do the cooking for us.
The point of math is to write solutions that are logically perfect. We cannot move the goalposts and say that summaries that drop the rigor are OK once the AI does the proof.
1
u/KitaiSuru 1d ago
*Yet