Prior whats?

When a qualifying noun is absent , then priors means prior beliefs.

Prior to what? Why not just say beliefs?

"Update your priors" is a common expression in English: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/update_one%27s_priors#English

No it's not. Where do you come up with this? Just because you searched the phrase on Google and there's a single result for it on a wiki? Who do you know that's using this expression regularly?

Your wiktionary link indicates it is not a common expression in English but instead something "rationalist community" people say.

HN is a rationalist community hangout.

we're reading comments on a post about math proofs

"Common" is an exaggeration.

I don't have enough information about the announcement for it to mean much to me. I don't know much about this field of maths. I don't know how many mathematicians were actively working on this problem. It could be zero, which would indicate it's not really that interesting. The article gushes about how it's a Very Important Problem, but it's not even mentioned on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conjectures_by_Paul_Er.... I'm sure the busy folk at openAI will fix that soon however. Furthermore the extensive dishonesty of companies like openAI makes me suspicious of just how this was achieved. Overall the announcement is of little interest to my "priors", although I don't typically think in such terms.

You don't have enough knowledge to dismiss them, but you still laugh? For?

Do you have enough knowledge? I laugh at everyone who accepts these claims in the light they're presented despite knowing so little.

The GP said "I like how everyone laughed when OpenAI said their models will have PhD-Level Intelligence", and you said you still laughed, so I just wanted to confirm if you did laugh at that. Apparently you did not. Thanks for the confirmation. I think you should not, given your admittedly limited understanding.

You don't know the names of the mathematicians who've given their thoughts on this? If not, you really should just not comment on anything mathematical ever again.

I do know their names. However I'm not in the field and there are many cases in recent years of high-profile scientists putting their weight behind highly dubious claims. Thanks for the advice, by the way.

Note that I'm not disputing the validity of the counterexample itself.

That's fair. If you're familiar with mathematics culture though, you'd know that "LLM hype" is not really in their blood and is certainly not something that gains you PR points. I think it's safe to take their comments at face value. I do think the ice is beginning to thaw though and perhaps in the next few years, there will begin to become more of a hype phase in math if some really high profile problems begin to fall to AI, although one might argue at that point that the hype would be deserved.

Doesn't make much sense, does it? If I accept that I don't have enough information on something, then I withhold judgement. There's nothing so reserved about mockery and cynicism. You're not cautious, you outright hedge that it's a lie, and paint everyone else to be a complete idiot for thinking at all otherwise.

The world runs on trusting expert advice. It'd seem that due to resource constraints and scale, that's the best available option. By extension, there should be absolutely nothing weird or surprising on people following suit. The opposite is what's weird and unusual.

It's interesting that those who come out swinging against "trusting the experts" not only ~never acknowledge this, but are seemingly outright proud of it, considering it as their own unique little trait, egocentrically revelling in it.

Woohoo, I'm distrustful and cynical. Behold my unfathomable wisdom! Bonus points if you're also hurtful, because flipping the arrow on "hard truths -> hurt feelings" is a masterclass in reasoning too, of course.

The problem was pretty well known, and had many human attempts. There's some room to argue that the right humans hadn't attempted it, as the solution used advanced methods from another field of math. But imho, whereas many prior AI victories could be explained by not enough human attention, there is no such excuse in this case, and one should acknowledge this is a notable achievement.

It is extremely well known. Lots of people have tried to solve it and it stood basically stuck for 80 years. It is getting harder every day to downplay these models.

Given its elementary nature (very easy to state), you can bet that a lot of very bright people have worked on it (I know of one MIT graduate who specialized in Geometry had a lot of interest in it).

I don't believe the result at all. I think it contains faulty logic. Perhaps the mathematicians involved can read the tea leaves and decide something interesting happened, but all this AI psychosis bullshit still refuses to accept that AIs do not, and cannot, have a mental model of the world.

Moreover, model output is incredibly good at looking credible but being wrong. It has NEVER produced something correct for me in a field of which I am an expert without some external oracle to validate claims (like e.g., Lean)

You should believe that the proof works at least as much as any ither paper in mathematics. The proof has been scrutinized by experts and simplified and improved. If you don't believe that then I'm sorry but you are deluding yourself.

At this point the term "AI psychosis" is the more apt label for AI skeptics. Here we have literal Fields medalists vouching for correctness and relative importance of the result, but who cares, "I don't believe the result at all". Just pure denial of reality.

Yes let me calculate the exact change it’s 0.004748394 probability now based on my own made up statistical vibes that I feel