I don't disagree -- there is a place for specialized tool, and LLM wouldn't be my first pick if somebody asked me to add two large numbers.
There is nothing wrong with LLM + SAT solver -- especially if for an end-user it feels like they have 1 tool that solves their problem (even if under the hood it's 500 specialized tools governed by LLM).
My point about producing a proof was more about exploratory analysis -- sometimes reading (even incorrect) proofs can give you an idea for an interesting solution. Moreover, LLM can (potentially) spit out a bunch of possibly solutions and have another tool prune and verify and rank the most promising ones.
Also, the problem described in the blog is not a decision problem, so I'm not sure if it should be viewed through the lenses of computational complexity.
There is nothing wrong with LLM + SAT solver -- especially if for an end-user it feels like they have 1 tool that solves their problem (even if under the hood it's 500 specialized tools governed by LLM).
My point about producing a proof was more about exploratory analysis -- sometimes reading (even incorrect) proofs can give you an idea for an interesting solution. Moreover, LLM can (potentially) spit out a bunch of possibly solutions and have another tool prune and verify and rank the most promising ones.
Also, the problem described in the blog is not a decision problem, so I'm not sure if it should be viewed through the lenses of computational complexity.