A surprising % of these LLM proofs are coming from amateurs.
One wonders if some professional mathematicians are instead choosing to publish LLM proofs without attribution for career purposes.
One wonders if some professional mathematicians are instead choosing to publish LLM proofs without attribution for career purposes.
"This LLM is kinda dumb in the thing I'm an expert in"
This will just become the norm as these models improve, if it isn't largely already the case.
It's like sports where everyone is trying to use steroids, because the only way to keep up is to use steroids. Except there aren't any AI-detectors and it's not breaking any rules (except perhaps some kind of self moral code) to use AI.
I assume OP was mostly joking, but we need to take care about letting AI companies hype up their impressive progress at the expense of mathematics. This needs to be discussed responsibly.
Anecdotally, I, as a math postdoc, think that GPT 5.2 is much stronger qualitatively than anything else I've used. Its rate of hallucinations is low enough that I don't feel like the default assumption of any solution is that it is trying to hide a mistake somewhere. Compared with Gemini 3 whose failure mode when it can't solve something is always to pretend it has a solution by "lying"/ omitting steps/making up theorems etc... GPT 5.2 usually fails gracefully and when it makes a mistake it more often than not can admit it when pointed out.