Isn’t that the point though - they’ve generated such strong results in mathematics, so why now are they delivering something so weak here?

Hype rather than realistic attempts to solve things is actually a valid explanation for that. They want to give the impression it’s a solve-everything machine even if it’s not well suited to areas outside of CS and math (or really anything where the logic of what is being done is not 1:1 with syntax, which is where LLMs are clearly excelling)

Man, a guy wrote an Irix emulator like nothing, with JIT and hostgl support and MIT licensed.

> So why now are they delivering something so weak here?

Was anyone under the impression that AI would, in its very first attempt at biological research, suddenly be able to get answers without having to need physical follow-through on its leads? Even if AI had a hypothetical cure for cancer, it would need a human with cancer and a biolab and governmental approval to actually do anything with it.

The nature of biology makes the feedback loops much larger and more expensive, which means the AI has to follow the "normal" collaborative scientific process instead of being able to hunker down in its proverbial study and work all night.

> Was anyone under the impression that AI would, in its very first attempt at biological research, suddenly be able to get answers without having to need physical follow-through on its leads?

Why can’t it build a simulator for this stuff? It has textual and formulaic explanations of everything it’s working with. Seems like it should be less than a days work if it can solve all of math in a few hours?

Any computational bottleneck on running such a simulator should also be solvable right, Anthropic have already told us this is the singularity already

AI boosters need to make up their mind: If you are claiming this is the Singularity and you have obsoleted human thought, expect to be judged by the standard you have set.

If you are saying you have made a really cool piece of enterprise security automation software, then okay I am impressed this is a very powerful fuzzer.

> AI discovering that aliens exist?

I wonder if this would turn even the most stalwart opponents around.

I could see discussion about such an announcement focusing on exactly what qualifies as an "alien."

Has it really? I wonder because all these "breakthroughs" are published in AI magazines and not mathematics magazines. Seems to me a bunch of advertisement but I am not qualified to make a claim

AI didn't solve large parts of mathematics. Which is not to say the the results aren't interesting or remarkable. Proving that Navier-Stokes blows up with certain external forces is important. But it's just a step, like seeing a pattern in data with no insight into what the data represents. Understanding why and where the fluid dynamics model is wrong is more interesting, if this enabled that then it's great.

All the proofs they've produced are interesting but they seem to be based on the work of mathematicians who nearly got there. As yet, no big leaps of insight. Again, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it's also not a demonstration of intelligence beyond reckoning. I also read it cost something on the order of $15m of inference per problem, maybe a whole army of mathematicians could have got there too if that was available.