Post #2438867
2026-05-06 13:05 UTC
@Ardubal@mastodon.xyz @tao@mathstodon.xyz
Svante wrote: " I wouldn't say »proof abundance«, rather »claim abundance«."
This is exactly correct. The underlying LLM technology can't do multiplication, let alone any serious math. But it is great at rehashing existing text into beautiful looking text, some of which is dead wrong.
So the problem of erronious but beautiful looking text appears in every single "LLM application".
At some point, we will all realize that this was a really stupid idea.
Replies (1)
-
@screwlisp@gamerplus.org 2026-05-06 21:21
@tao@mathstodon.xyz @djl@mastodon.mit.edu @Ardubal@mastodon.xyz I have a sort-of question about this. I guess that computer generated proofs are not new news. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_color_theorem#Proof_by_computer . Including proofs that are too large for human review to be possible or practical. On the other hand, I was surprised by the new Erdos problem 728 proof and had initially assumed that it "was really the mathematicians". So my question - is this just more automatic theorem proving, except powered by deep learning now?