do you think you are clever for being skeptical about LLMs if OpenAI comes up with a correct proof of Reimann's hypothesis? "but you shouldn't trust OpenAI because something something marketing"

i would classify you as a flat-earther if that happens.

> do you think you are clever for being skeptical about LLMs

brother like 3 people have pointed out what they're skeptcal of is cost not LLMs - at this point you're willfully misconstruing what people are saying to you just to get a kick out of repeating your same tired strawman.

Brother I already conceded that money is somewhat important but it is missing forest for the trees.

If OpenAI solved Reimanns hypothesis and the first comment is says something about lack of transparency and marketing, i would say it’s ignorant.

To "solve it" would require either a single counter example disproving the claim, or a proof that the conjecture about the Riemann zeta function is true.

If OpenAI claimed the conjecture to be true but provided no details about the proof then the first comment should absolutely be about lack of transparency.

> no details about the proof

do you really imagine a scenario where OpenAI would claim to solve it and not give details about the proof? how is this even possible? why would anyone believe them?