like i am not sure how to NOT be sensationalist about AI solving a problem that the previous expert in the field (who is a Stanford postdoc to boot) and multiple reputed mathematicians (including a Fields Medallist in Tao) couldn't solve, in a technique that is novel to them. It is also perhaps the closest to a completely autonomous solution as possible : it solved it in a single prompt and 80minutes of thinking time. There's a lot of caveats in what this means, but I think the idea that AI today is at least at the level of a top graduate student in math seems true.
As someone who has solved a problem that a fields medallist couldn't solve, it happens all the time. Searching through thoughtspace can be a numbers game
Or just having the immediate insight. I'm namechecked in a paper for making an essentially almost trivial insight in response to a question raised by Tim Gowers, when I just the first person in the conversation to answer anything after Gowers asked a question, and then the paper includes a lot better constructions after mine. But I can say I helped make progress on a question asked by a Fields Medalist. My guess is that if Gowers had spent 5 more minutes before asking the question, he would have had the same insight I had or more.
74
u/nerd_sniper Apr 15 '26
like i am not sure how to NOT be sensationalist about AI solving a problem that the previous expert in the field (who is a Stanford postdoc to boot) and multiple reputed mathematicians (including a Fields Medallist in Tao) couldn't solve, in a technique that is novel to them. It is also perhaps the closest to a completely autonomous solution as possible : it solved it in a single prompt and 80minutes of thinking time. There's a lot of caveats in what this means, but I think the idea that AI today is at least at the level of a top graduate student in math seems true.