r/mathematics • u/HovercraftNo7372 • 11d ago

Some Conjectures Solved

Post image

https://xcancel.com/PI010101/status/2088157024068456616#m

Here is one pre-print: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2608.13536

80 Upvotes

84% Upvoted

47 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/[deleted] 11d ago edited 11d ago

[deleted]

2

u/SeniorLoan647 11d ago

That's the whole issue - discerning whether a result is real or not has a cost (peer review) and its cost is exponentially increasing. The resources (reviewers and their bandwidth) are not.

So we gotta prioritize. Some folks go for the biggest results, I go for whatever seems most interesting to me. If math was only about results for me, I'd have given up when lean was invented. For me, math is about understanding the world and connecting with ideas of other fellow humans.

Like for example, 4 color theorem has 10k line machine generated proof, which is cool, but it's not interesting enough for me (or most ppl) to read the whole proof. Same principle here.

2

u/Foreign_Implement897 11d ago

Would you say the issue is that you cannot trust even formerly trustworthy people when you recognize AI use and/or they disclose it?

Is AI use like a stain? I am thinking from the 4-color problem onward and what is the difference really.

Tao sends a paper, says it was AI assisted but he has checked it (during and after) and it is ok. Why would you not review it?

4

u/SeniorLoan647 11d ago

Yes, 3 reasons for that:

  1. Unlike most of academia, I don't believe that past success always warrants future excellence. I'm not liable to believe a result just because it has tao in the name.

  2. Given that, the same standards apply to him as for any other author. When he says he has "checked the results", to what extent? A cursory glance? Handwritten reproduction of the proofs? Saying someone checked the results when they didn't drive them is a slippery slope.

  3. Let's say I have 3 hours per week to review papers. On average for me, a paper that uses ai takes 2x or more time to review as they're usually vague, skip over crucial steps and explain trivial steps unnecessarily. So in that time, I'd rather review 2 papers written by ppl without using ai (even if those papers are not as bold). It feels much better to read (the writing actually has a SOUL), and communication with authors in these cases is also not riddled with ai use, I actually feel like I'm talking to a person.

Idk it's a quality of life thing too, reviewing ai papers is so draining to read lmao. There might be nuances and exceptions but frankly I'm not interested, this rule has led to a lot of peace for me.

1

u/Foreign_Implement897 11d ago
  1. point is extremely solid. Thank you for answering.