If LLM proves theorems humans can't read, is that real progress?
SoloGen · x · 2026-09-03
SoloGen tracks LLMs' rapid progress in mathematical proofs but worries less about accuracy than human readability. A machine proving a statement doesn't change its truth, and revealing it to us is informative only in a very limited (1-bit) sense; without human understanding, he considers the value much lower.
Related event: Terence Tao Sparks Debate Over Unreadable Machine Proofs(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- AI commoditization: founders should seek friction, ops and regulatory moats — vaibhavbetter · 2026-10-18
- Anthropic's Jack Clark: from 10M scientists to 10 billion virtual ones — coherence · 2026-10-18
- Paras Chopra: Intelligence picks good options, power defines the option space — paraschopra · 2026-10-18
- Terence Tao on 'War Footing' as OpenAI Claims Navier-Stokes Solve Shakes Mathematics — AlexTensor · 2026-10-18
- Anthropic report: junior technical hires fell from 27% to 9% as agent hours hit 6x human hours — rohanpaul_ai · 2026-10-18
- Redditor proposes AI regulation framework: text detection, face verification, open algorithms — techtotechbytechy · 2026-10-18