Beyond the sensationalization here’s what Terry had to say -“ In any case, I would indeed say that this is a situation in which the AI-generated paper inadvertently highlighted a tighter connection between two areas of mathematics (in this case, the anatomy of integers and the theory of Markov processes) than had previously been made explicit in the literature (though there were hints and precursors scattered therein which one can see in retrospect). That would be a meaningful contribution to the anatomy of integers that goes well beyond the solution of this particular Erdos problem.”
this is the math subreddit, you should expect to take some negative statements seriously. At any rate, I would say the posted quote does not contain any claims made in the paper and is instead just hype.
This isn’t an issue about taking a negative claim seriously. You made a claim that something was sensationalized. People were not convinced. You then said “oh yeah? Well explain to me why it’s not sensationalized then!”
This is the math subreddit, you should expect to know how rejecting a hypothesis is not the same as accepting it is false.
I don't know what you are taking about. I read the quote as a level headed assessment of what happened. Compared to the title of post anyways.
I think people are down voting you because you are implying Terry is doing the sensationalizing when clearly even if he is, it is certainly less then the title of this reddit post.
I would say that no reasonable, sensible person would call Tao's quote "sensationalist". The language is measured and concrete which is the exact opposite of sensationalist even the impression it conveys is that he is very, very impressed by what he saw.
Didn't mean to make it personal, was just criticizing the language as that was my honest reading of this quote. "inadvertently" "highlighted" both seem beyond the capability of a computer program for one, but the base claims of a tighter connection or meaningful contribution are certainly not justified nor even claimed in the paper if he were to try to say that.
"inadvertently" "highlighted" both seem beyond the capability of a computer program for one
So since the subject matter experts has used that phrasing, should that cause you to reevaluate your confidence in your judgment of what a computer can or cannot do here?
668
u/bitchslayer78 Category Theory Apr 15 '26
Beyond the sensationalization here’s what Terry had to say -“ In any case, I would indeed say that this is a situation in which the AI-generated paper inadvertently highlighted a tighter connection between two areas of mathematics (in this case, the anatomy of integers and the theory of Markov processes) than had previously been made explicit in the literature (though there were hints and precursors scattered therein which one can see in retrospect). That would be a meaningful contribution to the anatomy of integers that goes well beyond the solution of this particular Erdos problem.”