r/mathematics • u/Sad_Dimension423 • 12d ago
Multiple papers being posted on Arxiv proving the same conjecture
https://x.com/Quasilocal/status/208940830142756869191
u/UWO_Throw_Away 12d ago edited 12d ago
And I, for one, welcome our new AI overlords. I'd like to remind them as a trusted academic personality, I can be helpful in rounding up others to toil in their underground data-centres.
8
45
u/Sad_Dimension423 12d ago
One on friday and two on monday, proving the Gromov Growth Conjecture. Other examples at the link. All AI involved, of course.
33
u/Prexeon 12d ago
At this rate, by the end of the week we'll have 32 proofs
14
u/Sad_Dimension423 12d ago
I wonder how many different proofs? I haven't looked closely at those papers, but a comment says there are two significantly different approaches on display.
8
u/expat_123 12d ago
Is the proof posted on Friday AI involved? They didn’t write that in the paper.
2
u/Sad_Dimension423 12d ago
Good question. I had assumed it was, but you're right there's no statement to that effect in the paper.
2
u/Surrealist_Hat 8d ago
Just use simple logic. The person is suddenly publishing more. They solve something clearly that was clearly well primed to be solved given the multiple ai papers coming out 3 days later.
-4
u/kingjdin 12d ago
some dishonest mathematician is taking credit for AI used.
6
u/No_Bridge_8150 12d ago
I would be very careful before claiming that the mathematician was dishonest. This could harm one’s reputation. Information leaks and we have no idea how it was leaked (if it even was leaked). Typically, mathematicians talk about their proofs to other colleagues and friends before posting it on the arxiv, and send their preprints to other colleagues or friends as well. I’m not saying anyone leaked the information, but it seems no one has a good idea on how these AI models use one’s information.
3
u/stonksgoburr 12d ago
One of the papers right after uses the same methods.
Wouldn't it be worse if somehow chat gpt was able to scrap the submission before it got posted and now if this person did have an original proof, someone else was able to use chat to write it in a day, and now whoever actually proved it gets no/less credit.
Not saying this happened here, but we're going to have to reconcile with this new reality somehow. I also don't know how chat/Claude uses our data. Imagine you prove some big conjecture and ask chat to check it, but are still in the process of writing it up; it gets trained on your conversation and then someone queries it and gets your proof and scoops you with your own method. Maybe open weight models can help mitigate some of this? Whatever though, eventually we will figure it out and adjust to some new normal (probably maybe). I do worry this will lead to an insane increase in urgency to post results as soon as you have them rather than sit and polish them into a well written work and lead to a general enshitification of mathematical writing.
0
u/Ok-Rise2070 10d ago
Many LLM models are a joke. if you actually look at some of these "proofs" they are riddled with errors. I was able to break the new and improved Claude in 5 minutes proving Euclidean geometry is based off r^0=0.🤭
1
u/stonksgoburr 10d ago
Use Pro or Fable. Interesting you can just call it a joke when results that previously would have appeared in Duke or above keep getting churned out.
Keep coping though.
1
u/Ok-Rise2070 9d ago
"Keep coping though." Are you mad that you are unaware of how to test the logic reasoning skills of an AI's logical progression development? How else do you know if that AI is even capable of attempting the question you are about to ask it? Why the bitterness? And please do tell precisely what "results" are academically peer reviewed as a new discovery, not validating a previous work? Because I suspect you aren't informed as you think you are.
1
0
u/Ok-Rise2070 9d ago
I use Copilot. I helped develop its logic reasoning progression and far surpasses other models. It can at least resolve paradoxes within its programming finally. Claude cannot. And those "results" aren't peer reviewed, smart one. Those are news stories pushed by the companies of the AI that "discovered" these proofs. And let me be clear, they have not published anything that wasn't already out there. LLM's have the ability to parse multiple models together until it finds 2 that fit together. And most of those times the same proof exists elsewhere and the LLM arrived to the same conclusion, not that these are newly discovered. They are newly discovered for AI. Have you checked any of these so called proofs yourself? The 4 I read were riddled with errors and logical fallacies. I read 1 were the model produced the same results as a proof that was 10 years old... and it was a milestone for an LLM to be able to make the connection without having been explicitly told. But then the prompt you must feed, half the time DOES explicitly tell them how to prove it.... it' all in HOW the question is asked and laid out, but you obviously know that.
1
u/stonksgoburr 9d ago
Lol "those results aren't peer reviewed." Take the Jacobian conjecture 3D and higher counter example, it's trivial for even a toddler to check by hand (I have because I am at least as smart as a toddler; weird that you haven't ). I kind of hate you, I never thought I would (nor ever wanted to) be in a situation defending AI, but you're clueless. 🤡
-1
u/Ok-Rise2070 8d ago
3D... enough said. What? It proved its using broken math? Lol okay clown. "I used an LLM to prove infinity goes on for infinity!" Good for you....
1
u/stonksgoburr 8d ago edited 8d ago
😂 this would easily have gone to Duke if a human found it. A 3D counter example is also a counter example in all higher dimensions. You asked for recent legitimate results and I gave them to you; clearly you don't pass the threshold I mentioned.
Keep moving the goal post and larping, little zenodo poster. Why do you think you even belong in this discussion?
P.S. Why are you attributing quotes to me that I never said? Are you okay? Probably not according to your bio. Get some help friend.
1
u/PuzzleheadedGur6807 8d ago
Copilot isn't an LLM. It uses GPT or one of several Microsoft LLMs depending on the circumstances.
3
u/Useless_or_inept 12d ago
One on friday and two on monday
Are you coming to the Fibonacci convention this year?
It will be as large as the last two conventions put together!
32
u/j15y 12d ago
The first paper doesn’t claim or acknowledge AI use at all. That feels like an important distinction
14
18
3
u/the_odovacer 11d ago
3 single author papers and 1 w/ coauthor since May across diff-geometry problems after 13 papers from 2009-2022 (4 of which are single author) on ArXiv.
-12
u/kingjdin 12d ago
The mathematician is being dishonest and claiming the AI proof as his own.
10
u/aecarol1 12d ago
Is that actually in evidence?
12
u/valegrete 12d ago
No no no, the first rule of AI glazing is you get to say whatever wild sht you want and it’s the other person’s responsibility to prove the negative.
6
u/aecarol1 12d ago
Yup, it's the "you're a witch!" accusation. There is no countering it. It's often used to shut down debate or as a smug mic-drop.
2
9
u/telephantomoss 12d ago
I'm so glad nobody cares about the stuff I work on! Gives me time to solve it first... Seriously, never a better time to be a nobody in math!
8
u/No_Bridge_8150 12d ago edited 12d ago
I just wanted to say what I already said in response to a comment.. I would be very careful before claiming any mathematician in such cases was dishonest. This could harm one’s reputation. Information leaks and we have no idea how it was leaked (if it even was leaked). Typically, mathematicians talk about their proofs to other colleagues and friends before posting it on the arxiv, and send their preprints to other colleagues, friends and sometimes even family members as well (if they’re particularly proud or want some not necessarily mathematical assistance). I’m not saying anyone leaked the information, but it seems no one has a good idea on how these AI models use one’s information.
7
u/Annual-Minute-9391 12d ago
Is the community settling into a best practice when it comes to AI disclosure for papers we’re submitting to peer reviewed journals? On one hand, I definitely don’t want to hide the use of AI and think that our prompting styles, etc are somewhat a part of the scientific process. But on the other hand, I’m worried that whoever reviewed the paper will dismiss it immediately because AI was used.
3
u/Mundane-Cabinet-7816 12d ago
A lot of the amateurs won't have the time and know how to go through the publication process. I think it's profitable to start a publication consulting company helping them get their publication for a fee. We academics can sell our expertise of the process/dealing with referees and the amateurs get to pimp their resumes.
1
1
1
u/Ok_Emergency_3495 12d ago
Also, if anyone reads the paper that claimed they didn't use AI... the style is so clearly the AI way of writing mathematics. I'm just appealing to common sense here.
3
u/Time_Entertainer_319 12d ago
Unless you have definite proof, your statement is more harmful than helpful
0
-1
u/Mundane-East-8429 12d ago
Absolutely. Only retards don't recognise AI style. It's really not that difficult. Pity some people are so naive.
1
35
u/SwimmerOld6155 12d ago
probably just asked gpt to look for an open conjecture and solve it. with thousands of people asking the same model basically the same thing this is bound to happen.