> Remember when people thought solving Erdos problems required intelligence? Is there anything an LLM could ever do that would cound as intelligence?

Hah. It reminds me of this great quote, from the '80s:

> There is a related “Theorem” about progress in AI: once some mental function is programmed, people soon cease to consider it as an essential ingredient of “real thinking”. The ineluctable core of intelligence is always in that next thing which hasn’t yet been programmed. This “Theorem” was first proposed to me by Larry Tesler, so I call it Tesler’s Theorem: “AI is whatever hasn’t been done yet.”

We are seeing this right now in the comments. 50 years later, people are still doing this! Oh, this was solved, but it was trivial, of course this isn't real intelligence.

I've spend a good chunk of time formalising mathematics.

Doing formalized mathematics is as intelligent as multiplying numbers together.

The only reason why it's so hard now is that the standard notation is the equivalent of Roman numerals.

When you start using a sane metalanguage, and not just augmrnted English, to do proofs you gain the same increase in capabilities as going from word equations to algebra.

When will LLM folks realize that automated theorem provers have existed for decades and non-ML theorem provers have solved non-trivial Math problems tougher than this Erdos problem.

Proposing and proving something like Gödel's theorem's definitely requires intelligence.

Solving an already proposed problem is just crunching through a large search space.

Well, the famous Turing test was evidently insufficient. All that happened is that the test is dead and nobody ever mentions it anymore. I'm not sure that any other test would fare any better once solved.