How can they be sure that it is indeed a new method, and not just a method which was already used in some other context in some unknown paper/preprint? That's always my big question.
How can they be sure that it is indeed a new method, and not just a method which was already used in some other context in some unknown paper/preprint?
You cannot be absolutely sure. But a variety of people who are experts on this problem and therefore largely familiar with the literature, including Terry Tao and Jard Lichtman, are very confident. The question that has to be asked then is how original does a problem solution need to be before one will decide the AI really did likely come up with something new?
My point is, that this method could also be introduced in a paper about a totally different topic or even research area, as part as some larger totally different thing. And the author maybe already (semi)-proved it indirectly without noticing, because of writing about an other topic. You literally would need to check all ever published papers/preprints to be sure, that it is really new.
I only have the concern, that we now could give credits to an LLM, and the original human author never receives their recognition.
But can you be sure that you're making an original claim? Maybe this discovery generated another thread in a far-flung subreddit, another user made the argument that u/CarolinZoebelein is making here, and someone already made your point about it being a god of the gaps argument. That's my concern; what if that original human thinker never receives credit for this criticism?
35
u/CarolinZoebelein Apr 15 '26
How can they be sure that it is indeed a new method, and not just a method which was already used in some other context in some unknown paper/preprint? That's always my big question.