Human Consistency Cannot Validate Judges
sanmikoyejo · x · 2026-07-12
The thread points out that using human consistency to validate judges is not scalable: any configuration change invalidates previous rounds of research. The Lean kernel is also unhelpful here because it only checks whether a proof passes; it cannot determine if the proposed theorem is correct, too broad, or under-constrained. Even if the code typechecks, it could still have semantic issues.
More from Research
- Open ECDSA.fail challenge uses AI agents to shrink Shor's-algorithm quantum circuits for Bitcoin keys — StefanoGogioso · 2026-09-11
- Alex Townsend posts 200 open problems in numerical linear algebra for humans and AI agents — IgorCarron · 2026-09-11
- Navier-Stokes, Riemann, P vs NP: what this week's math buzzwords mean for you — koltregaskes · 2026-09-11
- Fruit fly brain as an LLM: connectome-driven language model demo goes live — ngxson · 2026-09-11
- Harry Collins: LLMs can't do frontier science because they can't invent new language — whoamisri · 2026-09-11
- The Waymo effect: how AI is quietly making research less collaborative — JohnHammersley · 2026-09-11