Re:I struggle to believe that AI R&D is ingenious
by suddenlybananas on Friday November 06, 2026 @04:15AM
(#50390013)
Can't you kind of think of them as a genetic algorithm that has a very good hypothesis generator? Humans could, in principle, help guide that (already very impressive) hypothesis generator to make better guesses to find the proof more easily.
Re:I struggle to believe that AI R&D is ingenious
by YeGoblynQueenne on Friday November 06, 2026 @04:28PM
(#50398770)
[delayed]
Re:I struggle to believe that AI R&D is ingenious
by solyin on Saturday November 07, 2026 @05:21PM
(#50408610)
Conversations with an ChatGPT with Terence Tao at the helm are a thing of beauty. An advanced practitioner prompting things beyond my understanding. Jarred Sumner's paper on the Riemann Hypothesis, however, was not that. No slight against him, but Jarred was a non-mathematician, and his prompting to improve the minimum fraction of zeta zeros by Claude amounted to "keep going" and "believe in yourself". Shit, anyone coulda done that in his position.
https://www.anthropic.com/research/riemann-zeta
My point is that it does matter who's driving the AI but it also matters the route. Just like F1 champion Max Verstappen is a ridiculously better driver than me at driving an F1 car around a track, if we're just driving a friend to the airport, it doesn't really matter if it's Max or me driving, so long as we don't crash.
If they were really stupid, say like a Prolog program or a solver, only stating the goal was enough,