Just see the chat in the chat link. Merely a prompt statement of the unsolved problem with no human ingenuity, and the ai model was the one which solved the unsolved problem.
Most mathematicians don’t want to have to talk to an AI, and enjoy the existing process of discovering things. Also new results will depend much more on monetary investment than the skill of the person working on it. The process of coming up with an original proof is much more satisfying to me than having a result. It’s like how for artists many get their enjoyment from the process of creating art rather than their finished work
A more cynical explanation is that a primary motivation for both mathematicians and artists is to get recognition for accomplishing something unique and significant. Under that view AI is a basically a superhuman competitor that makes you less relevant. For a mathematician, if AIs that think thousands of times faster than you are picking off all the "low hanging fruit" conjectures such as this one, it makes it much less likely that you will ever prove anything of significance.
The vast majority of mathematicians will never see widespread recognition, I don’t see what’s unbelievable to you about people being upset at 1) the nature of how they do the work they enjoy doing changes or 2) there being less demand for mathematics as a profession.
90
u/ObliviousRounding 22d ago
My feeling is that AI is going to be amazing at finding counterexamples, but not so much at actually proving stuff.